Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Preactive teaching practice of female elementary teachers Ballhorn, Barbara Jean 1983

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1983_A8 B34.pdf [ 3.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0055739.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055739-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055739-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055739-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055739-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055739-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055739-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0055739-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0055739.ris

Full Text

PREACTIVE TEACHING PRACTICE OF FEMALE ELEMENTARY TEACHERS By BARBARA J E A N BALLHORN B.Sc,  University  o f A l b e r t a , 1967  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES D e p a r t m e n t o f S o c i a l and E d u c a t i o n a l  Studies  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s a s c o n f o r m i n g to the required  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF B R I T I S H COLUMBIA M a r c h 1983 © Barbara Jean  Ballhorn  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree at the  the  University  of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department or by h i s o r her  be granted by the head o f representatives.  my  It i s  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3  DE-6  (3/81)  written  ii ABSTRACT  The  purposes of t h i s g e n e r a l ,  describe during  how  preactive  teachers  fix  belief.  of  science,  Grade  that  of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n  teaching  involved  interviewing  selected  teachers  who  of B r i t i s h contract  The 1.  about relied  was b a s e d  on  held  reasoning.  20 f u l l t i m e , a large,  metropolitan  province.  The  a B.Ed, degree  Columbia;  or at l e a s t  possessed a  three  sample  from  a  the  permanent  year  and had a t l e a s t  female,  temporary  three  years of  experience. major  Teachers  basing  from  Canadian  contract i n the d i s t r i c t ; teaching  The  a r e t h o u g h t t o u s e when t h e y  and t h e method o f p r a c t i c a l  i n a Western  University  the bases  a t t h e d e c i s i o n s t h e y make.  teachers  4 teachers  included  and t o d e s c r i b e  make  They w e r e t h e m e t h o d o f a u t h o r i t y , t h e m e t h o d  study  district  were t o  about the d e c i s i o n s they  planning;  framework  methods  The  think  use i n a r r i v i n g  theoretical three  teachers  s p e c u l a t i v e study  their  f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s used  t h e method  planning  the knowledge moderately  d e v e l o p e d by o t h e r s  of p r a c t i c a l  decisions  level  of t h i s  study  reasoning  when they f e l t  of the subject;  2.  t o h e a v i l y on m a t e r i a l s a n d / o r but f e l t  that  were: i n  confident Teachers programs  t h e s e m a t e r i a l s needed t o  iii be  previewed  and  adapted  s t y l e s and p e r s p e c t i v e s ; influenced student  to a large  to their  3.  individual  Teacher p l a n n i n g  degree  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and  behavior  by two e x t e r n a l availability  teaching was  factors -  of  time  and  materials. The  i m p l i c a t i o n s of  district  findings  program p o l i c y a r e s i g n i f i c a n t .  assumption think,  these  that  these  educators  what  findings  understand  teachers  the  do i s a f f e c t e d by w h a t  they  about  steps  Although i t i s unreasonable  teachers  plan  general  way  t o recommend  inservice education  of  that  the preactive  process.  t h e same w a y ,  formulating  By h o l d i n g  are interim more  on  t o assume  may  help  planning that a l l  m e a s u r e s m i g h t be t a k e n i n a  improvements  i n preservice  teachers.  Supervisor  and  iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract  i i  Table of Contents. .  iv  Acknowledgements  v i  CHAPTER 1 Statement of the Problem Purpose of the Study T h e o r e t i c a l Framework o f t h e S t u d y Formation of B e l i e f s Method o f A u t h o r i t y Method o f S c i e n c e . . Method o f P r a c t i c a l R e a s o n i n g Format of t h e Study  1 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 7  CHAPTER I I . REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E I n f o r m a t i o n P r o c e s s i n g Model Decision-Making Model. Comparing Research Models t o S p e c i f i c Studies. Research about Teachers* I m p l i c i t Theories Research about Teacher P l a n n i n g Research about Teacher Judgment Summary Summary o f L i t e r a t u r e on T e a c h e r P l a n n i n g .  8 8 9 10  .  10 13 16 19 21  CHAPTER I I I . METHOD Research Design Instruments The I n t e r v i e w S c h e d u l e . R a t i o n a l e f o r the Interview Schedule . . Subjects S e l e c t i o n of Subjects Rationale f o r Selection C r i t e r i a . . . . Procedure Contact with Subjects Data C o l l e c t i o n Data A n a l y s i s  22 22 23 23 23 25 26 27 28 28 29 30  V  TABLE OF CONTENTS  (Continued) Page  CHAPTER I V . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results Teacher E x p e r i e n c e . Teacher Confidence Teacher P l a n n i n g Time. Personal Perspective i n Planning . Student Influence A v a i l a b i l i t y o f M a t e r i a l s and Time Discussion I s o l a t i o n w i t h i n the Classroom Individualism w i t h i n the Classroom I n f l u e n c e s on C l a s s r o o m T e a c h i n g . Implications  . . . . . . . . . . . .  32 32 32 32 34 35 39 40 42 43 44 45 47  CHAPTER V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS P r i n c i p a l F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study Recommendations P r e s e r v i c e Programs I n s e r v i c e Programs Suggestions f o r Future Research  50 50 52 53 53 56 59  Bibliography  62  APPENDIX I . Interview Schedule APPENDIX I I . I n i t i a l Contact Letter APPENDIX I I I . D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms  6  8  69 73  vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Many p e o p l e and  must be t h a n k e d  f o r g i v i n g me h e l p ,  encouragement i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s First,  I would  committee.  like  t o acknowledge  I am e s p e c i a l l y  committee-chairman,  grateful  Charles  support  study. members  o f my  f o r the counsel  o f my  U n g e r l e i d e r , who h e l p e d  formulate  the original  expertise  i n the editing  of the manuscript.  I am  indebted  to Roi Daniels  who g a v e  conceptual  matters.  Frank  conducting  Echols  research  helped  f i e l d w o r k as w e l l  proposal  me  advice  and o f f e r e d h i s  on  me a n t i c i p a t e  as gave a d v i c e  also  problems i n  on t h e r e s e a r c h  methodology. An  acknowledgement  participants prevent  of the study.  me f r o m  gave o f t h e i r  for  this  naming  m u s t be g i v e n t o a l l t h e  Conventions  of  anonymity  t h e many t e a c h e r s who s o w i l l i n g l y  time and a s s i s t e d  they c o u l d have Finally,  of thanks  i n g i v i n g me d a t a  that only  provided.  ERIBC must be a c k n o w l e d g e d .  p r o j e c t was p r o v i d e d  Educational Research  Institute  through o f B.C.  Financial a grant  support  from t h e  1. CHAPTER 1 In  spite  teaching,  o f t h e l a r g e number  little  i s known  of s t u d i e s d e v o t e d  about  how  teachers think.  to For  t h e m o s t p a r t , s t u d i e s o f t e a c h i n g h a v e c o n c e n t r a t e d on t h e visible  events  teaching  takes p l a c e .  apparent  i n classrooms  has meant  and  i n other  The b i a s t o w a r d  that  what i s  they a r e i n what happens b e f o r e examination  standing to  the process  teacher  of t e a c h i n g  i s important  of education.  and t h e s t u d e n t  interthan  the teaching occurs.  of t e a c h i n g  assume, however, t h a t  where  immediately  r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e b e e n more  e s t e d i n what happens d u r i n g t h e p r o c e s s  The  settings  f o r under-  I t w o u l d be a  the i n t e r a c t i o n represented  mistake  between  the  a l l or even t h e most  i m p o r t a n t phase of t e a c h i n g . Teachers actions  with  teachers' activity  students.  work  are both  The  lesser  legitimate  and d e s e r v i n g o f c a r e f u l  what J a c k s o n may  do many t h i n g s i n a d d i t i o n  (1965) c a l l s  increase understanding  the e d u c a t i o n a l p r o c e s s .  to their  known  inter-  aspects  of  p a r t s of p r o f e s s i o n a l  study.  The a n a l y s i s  of  t h e "empty c l a s s r o o m "  of teaching  of the l e s s v i s i b l e  f e a t u r e s of  Statement of the Problem There  i s a startling  thinking ways  processes.  that  teachers  "preactive"  virtue  teachers  Three  reasons  may  account  thinking  thinking  or t h e i r  behave.  have n o t t y p i c a l l y  aspects  Questions  about  knowledge be r e g a r d e d  little  acceptance  of  evidence  People  Firstly,  "thought  m u s t be  questioned  m u s t be i n f e r r e d  reason  i s that  think.  be c o n s i d e r e d  Lastly,  t h e way  to particular  teachers  research  an i n t r u s i o n  of the p r o f e s s i o n a l l i v e s p r o f e s s i o n a l s apply  from  researchers  d i s t i n g u i s h e d between t h e ways  t h i n k i n g may  private  the  f o r the absence of research  thought  Another  b e h a v e a n d t h e ways t e a c h e r s teacher  during  of t e a c h i n g y i e l d s  processes.  about t h e i r  they  do  about the  t h i n k about p l a n n i n g i s s u r p r i s i n g .  are not observable.  way  they  teacher  the absence of e m p i r i c a l  processes"  the  of t h e l i t e r a t u r e  t h i n k about what  of planning,  teacher  about  In view of the w i d e s p r e a d  a b o u t how  about  A review  of research  ( J a c k s o n , 1965) s t a g e  useful material. the  lack  of  about  into  teachers.  theoretical  c a s e s , p r o b l e m s and s i t u a t i o n s  as i n a p p r o p r i a t e , e s p e c i a l l y  the  after  may  teachers  have a c q u i r e d p r o f e s s i o n a l s t a n d i n g . T h e r e i s , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e common a s s u m p t i o n through  the l i t e r a t u r e  plan i s guided  a b o u t t e a c h i n g t h a t t h e way  by s e t s o f o r g a n i z e d  beliefs.  running teachers  I t has been  3. assumed  that  selective they  teachers  imitation  l e a r n from  of other  had during t h e i r  their  o b s e r v a t i o n and  teachers, e s p e c i a l l y  years  of studentship  In o t h e r words, i t i s assumed t h a t t e a c h e r s about  teaching  beliefs  serve  teaching. teachers* how  from  their  observation  as p r i n c i p l e s  Scheffler  personal b e l i e f s  on how t e a c h e r s The between teach.  teacher  beliefs  I f educators  wish  as a b a s i s f o r i m p r o v i n g information As J a c k s o n merely  a b o u t how  (1968) p u t s  doing,  f o r their  own  b e l i e v e s that  f a c t o r s have a major  and t h e way  the relationship  teachers  plan  t o use i n f o r m a t i o n about  a n d why  they  teachers  i t "the essence  but thinking  about  impact  plans.  n o t make c l e a r  teaching,  and  Eisner and V a l l a n c e  p l a n and c a r r y o u t t h e i r does  These  be o r g a n i z e d i n f l u e n c e  teach.  that personal  literature  beliefs  a b o u t how l e a r n i n g o c c u r s  how t e a c h e r s p l a n a n d how t h e y speculate  1975).  of others.  f o r example,  learning o p p o r t u n i t i e s should  (1974)  (Lortie, develop  of conduct  (1965),  teachers  need  and  teaching  systematic  t h i n k as they do.  of learning i snot what  one i s doing"  ( p . 12) .  Purpose o f t h e Study Understanding phase  how t e a c h e r s  of teaching  i s seen  think during as t h e f i r s t  the preactive o f many  steps  leading The  t o r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a b o u t how t e a c h e r s  purposes of t h i s 1. t o d e s c r i b e decisions 2.  plan.  study a r e : how  teachers  think  about  the  t h e y make d u r i n g p l a n n i n g ; a n d  to d e s c r i b e the bases teachers at  should  the d e c i s i o n s they  use i n a r r i v i n g  make.  T h e o r e t i c a l Framework o f t h e S t u d y To  date,  few s t u d i e s h a v e l o o k e d  a t why t e a c h e r s  do n o t u s e g r o u n d s o f b e l i e f  as a b a s i s f o r t h e i r  curricular  decisions.  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  thinking processes recognize  and u n d e r s t a n d  the importance  covert d i s p o s i t i o n s of teachers. may  provide  some i n s i g h t  o f t h e o v e r t and about  This affected  of the study 1.  On  Why  assumes  think.  teachers  t h a t what  teachers  Specifically,  what  grounds  do t e a c h e r s  grounds?  do  teachers  base  their  planning? base t h e i r  do i s  the purposes  a r e t o s e e k a n s w e r s t o two q u e s t i o n s :  d e c i s i o n s about 2.  how  teaching.  investigation by w h a t t h e y  planning  the p r o f e s s i o n a l l i v e s of  teachers, enabling researchers to understand make d e c i s i o n s a b o u t  a t teacher  researchers to  Research  into  specific  Looking  when p l a n n i n g may e n a b l e  use or  d e c i s i o n s on  these  5.  Formation of B e l i e f s "Teaching formulation not  simply  has  to  do,  in  of b e l i e f s ,  and  that  with  w h a t we  part  at  l e a s t , with  means t h a t  s h a l l b e l i e v e but  1971,  p.  48).  i t has  with  believe  i t " (Green,  strength  of b e l i e f s are q u i t e d i f f e r e n t from the  r e a s o n s on w h i c h p e o p l e b a s e t h e i r Beliefs systems,  do  not  related  1971).  Green  developing  to  says  belief  Teaching  might  reorganize  one that  know, b u t  our  standards  of  expedite been  given  p u r p o s e s of  the  of  with  grounds  in  They  exist  complex ways  criticism"  i s an  the  our  activity  continuing systems  aimed  that  (p.  describe  their  b e l i e f s which dealing  many p h i l o s o p h i c a l this  p.  only  what  (1890), S c h e f f l e r  (1965) and  "method o f a u t h o r i t y " , t h e  people  experience  fixing  t o f o r m a f r a m e w o r k b a s e d on Green  "method o f  we  in  2) .  interpretations.  s t u d y , t h r e e methods of  to  approved  allow  with  at  belief.  i s , our  ( S c h e f f l e r , 1965,  in  52).  effort  of  t r a n s m i t t i n g not  knowing,  of  or  (Green,  p a r t i c u l a r kind  as  shall  c o m p e t e n c e i n p e r f o r m a n c e , i n i n q u i r y , and  distinguished Peirce  manner  establishment and  a  we  do  psychological  isolation.  restructure  i s concerned  The  of  to  beliefs.  teaching  described  Education  intellectual  in  another  systems  be  and  exist  The  how  the  to  have  For  the  belief  are  the w r i t i n g s  (1971). science",  of  They  are  and  the  6. "method of p r a c t i c a l  reasoning".  Method of" A u t h o r i t y The  method o f a u t h o r i t y m i g h t  be adopted  who t u r n to some a u t h o r i t a t i v e person pedagogical  question.  by t e a c h e r s  f o r the answer t o any  I n an e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e x t ,  might be t h e a u t h o r i t y a t e a c h e r  perceives a  this  principal,  parent, c o l l e a g u e and/or a c u r r i c u l u m s p e c i a l i s t  to hold.  Method of S c i e n c e Teachers  who base t h e i r d e c i s i o n s on r e s e a r c h  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y gathered to have used  method  teacher  of p r a c t i c a l  (Green,  might m a n i f e s t  reasoning  of " s i x t h  i n v o l v e s a k i n d of  sense"  1971; S c h e f f l e r ,  a k i n d o f wisdom b a s e d  on t h e p a r t o f  1965). upon  A  teacher  insight  intuition  and a c o n s i d e r a b l e body of p a s t e x p e r i e n c e .  example,  a teacher  particular  class  might  based  "know"  on p a s t  use of terms such as " i n s i g h t " , and  said  Reasoning  p r a c t i c a l wisdom, a s o r t the  and p u b l i c l y e v a l u a t e d c a n be  the "method o f s c i e n c e " .  Method of P r a c t i c a l The  evidence  "feelings",  what  works  experience. "intuition",  or For  with  a  ( D e s p i t e the "sixth  sense",  t h e r e s e a r c h e r does not c o n s t r u e these as  precluding  involvement  of l o g i c . )  Format o f t h e Study In  the chapter  teacher  thinking  methodology  of  that  follows the literature  i s reviewed. the study  In the t h i r d  i s presented  research design, the i n s t r u m e n t s , cedure  the  t o the a n a l y s i s  study.  principal on t h e s e  The f i n a l  chapter, the  in detail.  The  the s u b j e c t s , the pro-  and the data a n a l y s i s are d e s c r i b e d .  devoted  about  Chapter  IV i s  and d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e r e s u l t s chapter  o p e n s w i t h a summary o f t h e  f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . f i n d i n g s a r e t h e n made.  d i s c u s s i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s  of  Recommendations  The c h a p t e r  based  closes with a  o f t h e study and a number o f  suggestions f o r future research.  8.  CHAPTER I I Review of the  Two  models  seem t o d o m i n a t e t h e  mental processes. and  They a r e an  a decision-making  differences (Clark,  between  research  about  information-processing (Clark & Yinger,  are  teacher  merely  matters  model  1977). of  The  emphasis  1978).  The  Model  i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g model p o r t r a y s the who  ment.  processes  The  teachers act.  model  them  Information-Processing  as one  Literature  information-processing  limit  and  I t pays  settings  s t r u c t u r e the  more  i n which  decisions  i n f o r m a t i o n s e l e c t e d from the  that  work  teachers  than  must  think  and  reach  focuses  the  teachers  i t does  make.  p r o c e s s i n g m o d e l s e e k s t o p r o v i d e an actually  environon  environment i n which  a t t e n t i o n to  they  model  teacher  to  The  not  they  and  the  the  actual  information-  account of  decisions —  how  how  how they  people ought  to. The  cognitive  research processes classroom  about that  information-processing  teaching are  i s concerned  thought  interaction.  For  to this  to  the  mental  underlie behavior  during  reason,  with  approach  teachers'  self-  reports  of  their  thought  main s o u r c e o f d a t a Clark  & Joyce,  Clark,  1978).  interviews "thinking  Morine  often  constitute  C h i t t e n d e n & Amarel,  self-reports  are  obtained  by and  where t e a c h e r s a r e a s k e d  thoughts and d e c i s i o n s as they  technique i s "stimulated r e c a l l " ,  to both r e c a l l and r e c r e a t e the mental t a k i n g p l a c e at the time the r e c o r d was  take  i n which  processes made.  to  asked  that  were  Ethnographic  are a l s o used f o r g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n .  Decision-Making  Research  Model  about  t e a c h i n g t h a t i s guided by the  making model seems t o f o c u s on e x p l a i n i n g and deliberate  1976;  & V a l l a n c e , ' -1975; P e t e r s o n &  a r e shown a v i d e o t a p e of t h e i r b e h a v i o r and  approaches  the  q u e s t i o n n a i r e methods, j o u r n a l keeping  a l l of t h e i r  Another  teachers  1975;  aloud" procedures  verbalize place.  (Bussis,  Teachers'  and  processes  teacher a c t i v i t y .  Jackson  decision-  understanding  (1968) and  (1976) i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h model  Shavelson  i s most  suitable  f o r l o o k i n g a t "empty c l a s s r o o m " behavior where the teacher has time to make d e c i s i o n s or judgments a b o u t Work by  Borko,  Cone, Russo and Shavelson  Izu and Shavelson making model planning.  what t o  (1979);  (1977) r e f l e c t s the use of t h e  in investigating  the psychology  do.  Cadwell,  decisionof t e a c h e r  10. Comparing Research Research beings their  about t e a c h e r s '  previous  experiences.  important-to Janesick  about  what  notes  based  single  teacher.  expressed  an a c c o u n t  The t e a c h e r  Duffy's beliefs  world.  In Janesick's  on c l a s s r o o m  observa-  of the p e r s p e c t i v e  Janesick  as a l e a d e r  that f o s t e r e d group  d e s c r i b e d was  and t h e t e a c h i n g  consistently  personal b e l i e f s .  employ  influenced The  i n the area  teacher  of teachers*  (1977,  c o n c l u s i v e evidence p r a c t i c e s which for this  may be due t o t h e d i f f i c u l t y  about what t e a c h e r s  con-  responsible f o r planning  of reading  The r e a s o n  of a  effort.  continuing research  h a s g i v e n us l i t t l e  evidence  world.  approach t o study-  s t r u c t u r e of the classroom.  h i s role  activities  b e l i e f s and  I t i s therefore  a b o u t how t h e l e s s o n s w h i c h w e r e p l a n n e d  social  and  i n t e r v i e w s were a n a l y z e d weekly t o b u i l d ,  and v a l i d a t e  do  teach.  t e a c h e r s make s e n s e o f t h e i r  define  1981)  they  (1977) u s e d a n e t h n o g r a p h i c  t i o n s and t e a c h e r  the  Many o f t h e j u d g m e n t s  s t u d y how t e a c h e r s make s e n s e o f t h e i r  study, extensive f i e l d  cerned  A l l human  t h e f u t u r e on t h e b a s i s o f  t h a t t e a c h e r s make a r e b a s e d i n t h e i r  conceptions  how  Studies  implicit theories.  make p r e d i c t i o n s a b o u t  decisions  ing  Models t o S p e c i f i c  lack  1979, 1980, that  reflect  their  of c o n s i s t e n t  of obtaining  (and anyone) t h i n k s .  teachers  evidence  I t may a l s o be t h e  11. fact  that  apply  teachers  theoretical  inappropriate T h e y may  perceive knowledge  to their  be g i v i n g  questioning to practical  role  effectiveness  the researcher  interacted  with  achievers,  students  with  I t was  be t h e o b j e c t s o f h i g h  positive ics  teacher  attitudes.  and o t h e r s , a f f e c t  They a f f e c t students  teacher  which  have  affects  (1977) r e p o r t e d  found  like  syncratic behavior. priate f o r students piece  as  that  that  they high  appeal  attractive,  expectations  to tend  a n d more  characterist-  perception of students. and a t t i t u d e s  regarding  t h e way t h e t e a c h e r s  that  the perceptions  plan  teachers  i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l  i n f l u e n c e how t h e y p l a n f o r i n s t r u c t i o n .  that p l a n n i n g ,  teacher  students.  of t h e key elements  markedly  one  teachers'  desirable  about  These s t u d e n t s *  expectations  i n turn  f o r and d e a l w i t h Toomey  teacher  teacher.  students  personalities  t e a c h e r s , a n d s t u d e n t s who a r e p h y s i c a l l y to  as  beliefs.  individual  teachers.  they  situations  socially  (1974) c o n d u c t e d a s t u d y  by t r a c k i n g  how  a s an e x p e r i e n c e d  responses r a t h e r than p e r s o n a l l y h e l d B r o p h y a n d Good  about  teaching,  process He f o u n d  i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  P e r s o n a l p e r c e p t i o n s o f what i s approtend  t o be d i s s i m i l a r .  For instance,  o f m a t e r i a l w a s r e j e c t e d b y one t e a c h e r  grounds o f i t s being  idio-  sexist,  whereas  another  on t h e  rejectedi t  12. because  the  difficult what for  students would not  to construct a conceptual  specific  t h i n g s these  instruction  ordered  or  how  Floden,  framework  F r e e m a n and  d e c i s i o n s about  in  e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m , a s w e l l a s by  thetical  I t was  directives and  the  They p r e s e n t e d  found  be  66  office,  the  teachers  decisions.  did avoid teaching  paper  They  content  with  own  hypo-  curriculum  of  of  sit-  such  as  textbooks,  test  also found which  math  teachers*  availability  local  (1980)  individuals  that external pressures  from c e n t r a l  content  teachers  results  that  these  they  personally  in-depth  interview  difficult.  Bussis approach  et  to  perceptions confirm Results  a l . (1976)  produce of  a  was  events.  the  scheme  of  teachers*  They u s e d t h e  r e l a t i o n s h i p between  teachers' behavior guided  an  scheme t o  p r e v i o u s l y given i n the i n t e r v i e w s .  indicated that  which  used  codified  classroom  the p e r c e p t i o n s  p e r c e p t i o n s and one  the a c t i o n s of other  p u b l i c a t i o n i n the  affected  found  Schwille  v i g n e t t e s which described s p e c i f i c  uations.  could  fourth.grade  w e r e i n f l u e n c e d by  b e l i e f s about math.  appropriate  things  content the  was  illustrating  considered  specific  i t  purposes.  Porter, Schmidt,  that, teachers'  i t . Therefore  teachers  these  for instructional  found  enjoy  by  a  set  of  was  teachers'  a relatively  organized  beliefs  loose often  13. operating In  unconsciously.  general,  the  implicit  t h e o r i e s has  similar  results  personal  dispositions.  that  teachers  from t h e i r  used  reviewed  behavior  Researchers  upon  the  have  about  as  has their  known f o r  years  raised  method  but by  Overall,  i m p l i c i t t h e o r i e s has  answered  teachers'  i s guided  'knowledge' they  previousexperiencesr  i t has  about  diverse methodologies  teachers*  draw  about t e a c h e r s ' then  —  research  have  gained  the  research  more  questions  well  as  about  substance.  Research depicted 1976;  as  about  Unlike  &  decisions during  made i n p l a n n i n g  can  be  have the a d v a n t a g e of  situation each  Evertson,  the  ones  interactive carefully  1978;  Schultz  The  situation At  Buckley &  1973,  made  teachers  teaching,  while make.  decisions  considered.  They  can  deliberation.  (Yinger, 1978).  planning.  been  (Shavelson,  Decisions  best  has  i s a d i r e c t outgrowth of the g e n e r a l  classroom  teacher  1979;  be  Teaching  process  E l s t e i n , 1975).  i n s t r u c t i o n may  Planning  planning.  a decision-making  Shulman  planning  teacher  u n i q u e n e s s and  necessitates  least  five  & Cooper,  F l o r i o , 1979;  complexity  some  studies  1978;  Clark  Tichunoff  teaching  degree (Anderson and  of of &  Elmore,  & Ward,  1978)  14. support  the  notion  that  organization,  rules,  the  of the f i r s t  business  establishing  procedures,  and  i s planned,  organized,  Traditionally, has  been m a i n l y  over  the p a s t  the  experienced  prescriptive.  Briefly,  This  criticism.  The  example,  m o d e l by  do  always  not  model  has  activity.  choose  Taylor's British of  teachers  these,  the  the  to  object  fashion. only  their  stated of  much  approach models.  in  to  practice,  context  learning  to For  They showed  i n the  own  the  (1967) p o i n t e d  that teachers,  exist  the  linear  Eisner  to  that  of  an  experiences  objectives.  (1970)  research  secondary system.  curriculum  when  own  of  in a linear and  pursue t h e i r  of  teach  for alternative  demonstrating  the o b j e c t i v e s a r i s e  and  been  (1965) and  Students  planning  most p r e v a l e n t  according  disaffection  plan  teacher  experiences,  l e d to a search  another  evaluated.  been the model  evaluate  MacDonald  school  to  objectives, select  objectives.  about  the  t h e model r e q u i r e s t h e p l a n n e r  state  and  and  of  frame-  by  (1950).  objectives,  form a  proposed  Tyler  p l a n n i n g has  The  t h i r t y y e a r s , has  and  remainder  literature  classroom  routines constitute  week o f s c h o o l  work w i t h i n w h i c h t h e w o r k o f t h e year  the b a s i c  planning, planned  was  Although evidence they  conducted  within  t h i s s t u d y was  more  the one  seemed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t  tended  to  use  d i s t r i c t  15. objectives teachers'  as guidelines f o r s e l e c t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s . interest i n materials,  interaction  took  precedence  activities  over  what  The  and p u p i l  the Tyler' model  p r e s u m e s m u s t be p a r a m o u n t - i . e . , t h e g o a l s . Zahorik planning  on t e a c h e r  teachers in  (1970)  typical  rigid  classroom  the e f f e c t s of structured  behavior.  Zahorik  The r e a s o n f o r t h i s a p p e a r e d  planning  model  and p u t him on a " t r a c k  (p. 1 4 9 ) .  Once t h e t e a c h e r  produce  introduced cluded  these  decided  outcomes  this  that  and t h e i r  in insensitivity In a l a t e r teacher  setting  them, he s e t o u t of what  situation.  planning  pupils He  model —  o r g a n i z a t i o n and e v a l u a t i o n  con-  goals,  -- r e s u l t  t o p u p i l s on t h e p a r t o f t h e t e a c h e r .  study,  Zahorik  planning.  the key elements  teachers,  thinking  w h a t o u t c o m e s he w a n t e d  regardless  the t y p i c a l  concerning  h i sinquiry  the relative  i n the planning  f o rinstance,  objectives  (1975) c o n t i n u e d  He f o u n d t h a t t e a c h e r s  the views t h a t they h e l d of  that  t h a t was n e a r l y d e r a i l - p r o o f "  into the teaching-learning  from  activities  into  that  t o be  made t h e t e a c h e r ' s  f r o m t h e l e s s o n a n d how. h e w o u l d a c h i e v e to  noted  who u s e d T y l e r ' s m o d e l w e r e i n s e n s i t i v e t o p u p i l s  the classroom.  the  examined  emphasized  i n the planning  differed i n importance  process.  Some  the importance process.  of  Others were  more c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e s c o p e a n d p a r t i c u l a r s o f  subject  16. matter  content before they  very l i t t l e  t i m e was  Research about  those of Goodlad,  (1976)  about  and  The  representing approach 1971).  most  are very  judgment  processes  & Elstein,  This approach to  particular  reproduce  the  teacher-judge.  methodology  i s how  judges  p r o v i d e d by d i s c e r n i b l e Anderson  (1977)  i s a  Slovic  with  a  &  said were  i m p o r t a n t were  judge a c t u a l rated  and  She  situations.  ranked  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ,  by  found not  and  however,  as  in  g r a d i n g were  taken  into  in  of  in  them  this  or  i n making  that teachers they  important  used  s u b j e c t and  a  to cue  teacher  practice  more  a  information  e n t h u s i a s m was  account  of  task.  same c u e s  an  and  characteristics  in actual  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s s u c h as k n o w l e d g e  and  model  interest  the cues  For example,  teachers  studies  Lichtenstein,  combine  the  that the  (1978).  responses  cues i n the judgment  investigated  "policies".  Clark  simple  central  weigh  associates  policy-capturing  inferential Of  findings  i n scope  "cues" t e a c h e r s b e l i e v e d were i m p o r t a n t t o judgment  and  and  m e t h o d o f s t u d y i n g and  1975;  begins  unit  Research  limited  used  or  These  Klein  judgment.  frequently  (Shulman  attempts  lesson  P e t e r s o n , Marx and  teacher  teacher judgments  number.  a  s p e n t on o b j e c t i v e s .  were c o n s i s t e n t w i t h (1970), Morine  planned  other  fairness  strongly  than  17. enthusiasm. making  This  judgments,  differently  than  finding teachers  seems t o i n d i c a t e may  t h e way t h e y  actually say they  make  that  when  decisions  i n t e n d t o make t h e  decisions. Shavelson teachers as  their  sented  to the r e l i a b i l i t y  looked  a t the s e n s i t i v i t y of  of information received as w e l l  w i l l i n g n e s s to revise i n i t i a l  with  teachers* teachers  e t a l . (1977)  additional  estimates taught  accurate  information.  of student  students  j u d g m e n t s when They  found  l e a s t on a g e n e r a l l e v e l .  that  a p t i t u d e a f f e c t e d t h e way  and t h a t t e a c h e r s were  i n estimating their  pre-  own  Evidence  students'  reasonably ability,  at  i s mixed on t h e e x t e n t  to which t e a c h e r s ' judgments a r e f l e x i b l e  and r e s p o n s i v e t o  new i n f o r m a t i o n . Clark, about  Wildfong  teacher  and Y i n g e r  judgment  (1978) c o n d u c t e d  i n the use o f s p e c i f i c  study  teacher  activities  and m a t e r i a l s .  categorized  26 d e s c r i p t i o n s o f l a n g u a g e a r t s a c t i v i t i e s  w r i t i n g  s e l e c t e d  instructional  catalogue.  teachers were asked would  a  what  involvement  they  compiled  commercially  In this  judgment  did.  classrooms  For example,  and on  available  exercise, the  t o decide which of these m a t e r i a l s  p r e f e r f o r use i n t h e i r  selected and  from  The r e s e a r c h e r s  a  a n d why  student  they they  motivation  were mentioned most f r e q u e n t l y a s a  basis  18. for  accepting  Similar on  rejecting  a  f i n d i n g s were o b t a i n e d  by  teacher We  or  call  initial  Marx  considered  (1978)  in his  policy-capturing studies.  In  such  o b s e r v a t i o n s o f , f o r example, teacher and  items  used f o r f u r t h e r s t u d i e s .  are  accurate  cue  major  somewhat f o r m a l i z e d .  identification problem  work  observed  by  While  literature  reviewed  identifying,  selecting  provides and  formalized  i t i s an  studies.  t h a t the j u d g e can With  are  i n some s t u d i e s  i s important,  the r e s e a r c h e r .  studies  choices,  Then t h e s e  in naturalistic  always the p o s s i b i l i t y cues not  activity.  s e v e r a l e x a m p l e s o f w h a t some  classified  more  arts  judgment.  h a v e now  people  language  There  is  and  use  perceive this  l i t t l e  even  i n mind  guidance  d e f i n i n g c u e s t o be  the for  judged.  The  s m a l l number o f s t u d i e s on  teacher  judgment y i e l d  results  that  i n the  i n f o r m a t i o n they  provide  are  often very  about a s p e c i f i c these  tasks  about teacher To  rich  judgment t a s k , however, the u n i q u e n e s s  prevents  us  judgment a t t h i s  summarize,  most  teacher  thinking processes  highly  controlled  teachers teachers  from  of  making  in a  statements  time. the  literature  focuses  settings.  realistic  on  teacher  Educators  s p e c i f i c a l l y , have g l e a n e d plan  general  of  very  setting.  review  about  planning  in general, little Little  about  in and how  i s known  19. a b o u t how and  teacher planning behavior  whether  individual  personality  changes w i t h  teacher  i n f l u e n c e the  style  experience  d i f f e r e n c e s such of  teacher  as  planning.  In  g e n e r a l , t h e s m a l l number o f s t u d i e s y i e l d g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s which  are  so  vague  and  B e f o r e e d u c a t o r s may of  this  evidence,  as b e i n g this  o r may  there  as  to  not agree  research evidence  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of  point  o f why  general  is little  be  on  of  help.  the meaning of  will  "important  h a v e t o be  any  viewed  information".  consensus i n the  t e a c h e r s d e c i d e as t h e y  little  At  understanding  do.  Summary In  summary, when p l a n n i n g  significant  intellectual  i s done w e l l ,  e f f o r t , drawing  on p r a c t i c a l  theoretical  knowledge  ( Y i n g e r , 1977).  Planning  wide  of  processes  as  range  (Marx,  1978;  mental  Shavelson  decision-making the  use  of  Janesick, organized Cooper, 1979;  (Clark  implicit 1977).  teaching 1978;  Individual  knowledge  (Anderson  1979;  characteristics,  1978),  1973)  1978;  t o be  & Ward,  student  and 1974; well  Buckley  Clark & Yinger,  Tichunoff  tasks  & Good,  is vital  & Evertson, 1979;  Yinger,  Shavelson,  (Brophy  planning  & Elmore,  Florio,  teacher  1975;  and  involves a  judgmental  a l . , 1977;  & Joyce,  Teacher  Clark  S h u l t z and  et  such  i t requires  &  1977, 1978).  character-  20. istics,  and  teacher  planning  Eisner  curriculum  & Vallance,  (Anderson, 1974;  i s a process oriented interaction staff,  specialists,  External and  with  influences  school  Taylor,  other  1970;  1970;  action  persons  administrators) s u c h as  systems  Clark  et  a l . ,  Shavelson et a l . , 1977).  toward  organization,  accountability  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s combine to a f f e c t  i n the  (team  (Floden  curriculum  a f f e c t planning  Toomey, 1 9 7 7 ) .  et  and  support  a l . , 1980).  materials,  administrative  Planning  classroom  teachers,  1978;  classroom  requirements (Anderson,  and 1970;  21. Summary o f L i t e r a t u r e on  Teacher  Generalizations  Research  P l a n n i n g d r a w s upon p r a c t i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l k n o w l e d g e .  Yinger,  Planning involves: - decision-making - judgmental -  implicit  tasks  knowledge  Planning i s v i t a l to w e l l organized teaching.  P l a n n i n g i s a f f e c t e d by: - teacher c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s - student -  characteristics  curriculum characteristics  P l a n n i n g i s a f f e c t e d by external influences.  Planning  1977  C l a r k and J o y c e , Shavelson, 1973  1975;  M a r x , 1978; Shavelson et a l . , 1977; Yinger, 1978 B r o p h y and Good, 1974; Bussis et a l . , 1976; Duffy, 1977 A n d e r s o n and E v e r t s o n , 1978; B u c k l e y and C o o p e r , 1978; C l a r k and E l m o r e , 1979; C l a r k and Y i n g e r , 1977, 1979; S h u l t z and F l o r i o , 1979; T i c h u n o f f and W a r d , 1978 A n d e r s o n , 1977; Vallance, 1974 Shavelson Clark  Eisner  et a l . ,  et a l . ,  and  1977  1978  A n d e r s o n , 1977; Floden et a l . , 1980; Taylor, 1970; Toomey, 1977  22. CHAPTER I I I Method  The  primary  o b j e c t i v e of t h i s  and why t e a c h e r s decisions.  study  was t o d e s c r i b e  go a b o u t m a k i n g c e r t a i n  types  The o b j e c t i v e was a p p r o a c h e d  descriptive  study  involving  of  how  planning  by means o f a  interviews with  20 G r a d e  4  teachers.  Research  Design  This ticular  study  i n v e s t i g a t e d why a n d how t e a c h e r s  curricular  pre-active  and i n s t r u c t i o n a l  phase of t e a c h i n g .  Given  the p r e a c t i v e phase o f t e a c h i n g interviewing questions  procedure  to openly  thought  processes.  respondent planning this  decisions.  design  also  I).  express  This  technique  t o use an  in-depth  enables  enables  h e r f e e l i n g s about questions how  The f l e x i b i l i t y  meaning(s) of spontaneous  during the  t h e complex n a t u r e of  i t was d e c i d e d  Open-ended  to describe  par-  i n v o l v i n g a s e t of semi-structured  (see Appendix  teacher  decisions  made  complex  allow  the  she t h i n k s about her and a d a p t a b i l i t y  the researcher responses.  a  of  t o probe i n t o the  23. Instruments The  interview schedule.  The i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e  was  b a s e d upon a f r a m e w o r k d e r i v e d f r o m t h e p h i l o s o p h i c a l of P e i r c e  (1890) a n d S c h e f f l e r  (1965) .  For the purposes of  t h i s r e s e a r c h , t h r e e methods o f f i x i n g  b e l i e f were  to  made  be t h e b a s e s  instructional (Peirce, 1965)  upon w h i c h  decisions.  1890) , method  and method  Interview  teachers  of s c i e n c e  and  of a u t h o r i t y  reasoning  (Scheffler  thought  curricular  They w e r e : method of practical  work  (Scheffler,  and  Peirce).  q u e s t i o n s were s t r u c t u r e d around t h e t h e o r e t i c a l  framework.  Rationale  f o r the interview schedule.  t e a c h e r s were asked reason  how many y e a r s  f o r asking  this  experience might a f f e c t Question  in question indicate parent planned. logic;  question  to clarify  the three  were  types  of  2c, reliance  beliefs  terms,  a f f e c t e d how  on r e s e a r c h feelings.  to  principal, they  to the use o f r e a s o n i n g  on p e r s o n a l teachers  i n general  (colleague,  specialist)  2b r e f e r r e d  what  asked,  on o t h e r s  resource  q u e s t i o n 2d, r e l i a n c e used  teaching  t o u s e when m a k i n g p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s ,  i f reliance  Question  The  planning.  2a t e a c h e r s  and/or  had taught.  q u e s t i o n was b a s e d o n how  2 encompassed  teachers are thought  they  In question 1  or  e v i d e n c e ; and, Probes  m e a n t when t h e y u s e d  were terms  such why  as r e a s o n ,  logic  3 was  how much t i m e asking  this  an o b j e c t i v e  to investigate  q u e s t i o n was  Question  4 was  planned.  they r e l i e d  Probes  systematically  o n how  t h e amount o f t i m e decisions. asked  teachers to  to find  "heavily",  o u t what t h e  "sometimes", e t c .  teachers with  a  hypothetical  where f o r c e d - c h o i c e s i t u a t i o n s  presented  an e l a b o r a t i o n  The r e a s o n f o r  on p r e p a r e d m a t e r i a l s when  were necessary  5 presented  situation  day.  a q u e s t i o n which  meant when s h e s a i d  Question teaching  based  t e a c h e r s make p l a n n i n g  i n d i c a t e how h e a v i l y  respondent  q u e s t i o n asking teachers  they spent p l a n n i n g each  m i g h t a f f e c t how  for  also,  t h e y c h o s e t h e one t h a t t h e y d i d . Question  they  and f e e l i n g s ;  t o them.  on t h e i r  Respondents were  choice.  were probed  The f o r c e d - c h o i c e  s i t u a t i o n s were:  Question  5a  practical logic)  5b  reasoning  v e r s u s peer  practical  ( f e e l i n g s and authority  reasoning versus parental  authority 5c  practical  reasoning versus  resource s p e c i a l i s t 5d  practical pal  theory  reasoning versus  authority  district  princi-  25. In q u e s t i o n extent  to which  6 teachers they  were  relied  a planning  decision.  elicit  an e x p l a n a t i o n  of t h e i r  7 teachers  confidence  about s u b j e c t  planned.  Specifically,  confidence  level  studies  respondents different  than  Question  they  might  were  science  i n f l u e n c e how  asked  t o compare  content  necessary  "science  studies  to give  versus  they their  social  t o encourage the  planning"  might  respondents  planning  be  planning".  a further  on a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n  t h i n k i n g about t h e i r  to  f e e l i n g s of  t o summarize the e n t i r e i n t e r v i e w .  intended  elaborate  necessary  8 was t h e l a s t on t h e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e .  was d e s i g n e d also  when  answers.  Probes were  "social  Probes were  matter  t o e x p l a i n why  to the  evidence  were asked i f t h e i r  i n teaching  content.  to respond  on r e s e a r c h  making  In q u e s t i o n  asked  they  I t was  chance  might  It  to  u s e when  decisions.  Subjects All  subjects for this  a large, metropolitan province.  From  study  district  t h e 1981-82  researcher  chose only  Grade  The f o u r t h g r a d e  4.  typically  includes  were t e a c h e r s  teachers  a full  s e l e c t e d from  i n a Western  elementary  Canadian  staff  list,  who w e r e p r e s e n t l y level  was  chosen  representation  the  teaching  because i t  of the subject  26. areas  taught  content  area  in a  single  of s o c i a l  classroom  s t u d i e s was  by  one  selected for  because i t a l l o w e d a g r e a t d e a l of l a t i t u d e decided  to  plan  the  classes  of  only  Grade  G r a d e 3-4  split  class  included i n the they this  represent study  content.  study. the  85%  of  Because  4 students,  or  Grade  4-5  Grade  split  study  were  who  class  The  teachers  there  few  taught were  a  also  were i n t e r v i e w e d s i n c e  Grade 4 t e a c h e r . 4  the  i n how  teachers  Only females  typical  teacher.  teachers  At the  i n the  time  of  district  were  contact l e t t e r  (See  female.  Selection Appendix  I I ) was  teachers. were  of  Only  1.  to  for  the  An  initial  a l l of  the  meeting  63  the  study.  female  Grade  following  The  sample  held  a  B.Ed,  degree  from  the  included  University  of  a permanent t e a c h i n g c o n t r a c t or  at  Columbia  possessed  l e a s t a three year  temporary  contract in  the  district 3.  were c u r r e n t l y  4.  had  at least  teaching  three years  full-time of t e a c h i n g  4  criteria  who:  British 2.  sent  teachers  considered  teachers  subjects.  experience  27.  be  Rationale  f o r selection  considered  in selecting  holding  a four year  University the of  need  not  t h e hope was  p a t t e r n s of reasoning The  second  teacher  permanent  teaching  likely  t o be a b l e  A  permanency  may  certification. position  temporary feel  were  education  of  teacher  to find  whether  or  the need  selection  Teachers  considered  was  holding t o be  a  less  to give s o c i a l l y desirable  teacher  r e s p o n s e s she t h i n k s a r e d e s i r e d . of  was  t h i n k and i n t h i s  f o r teacher  i n an i n t e r v i e w s i t u a t i o n  responses.  for this  type  teachers  one  degree from the  The r e a s o n  and  was  c o u l d be d i s c o v e r e d .  criterion  permanent  subject  of Education  Education  i n f l u e n c e how  study  factor to  uniformity of preservice  selected subjects.  initial  The f i r s t  teacher  Columbia.  for a certain  may  a  Bachelor  of B r i t i s h  training  criteria.  insecure  to give This  job  the interviewer  may  the subject perceiving the researcher  about  be t h e r e s u l t . _  t o h a v e some k i n d  of a u t h o r i t y o f i n f l u e n c e . Full-time when s e l e c t i n g teachers classroom teachers  who  e m p l o y m e n t was subjects. taught  factor  F u l l - t i m e employment  i n the classroom  teaching with  considered included  a l l day o r combined  administrative duties.  i n t e r v i e w e d were  vice-principal) .  the third  head  teachers  Three  (equivalent to a  P a r t - t i m e t e a c h e r s were n o t s e l e c t e d f o r  28. two  reasons:  social  firstly,  s t u d i e s , and  considered lessons.  planning time  teacher three  way  factor  s u b j e c t was  formalized  part-time  time  planning  not have  to plan,  Grade  4  teachers  may  be  prepare  d e c i s i o n s may  t o be  considered  experience.  and  differ  mark when  of teaching experience  they do.  i n selecting  Teachers with  at  were c o n s i d e r e d  a m e t h o d o f e x p l a i n i n g how  experience  taught  i s increased.  fourth  years  may  secondly,  t o have more  Overall,  The  they  a n d why  they  R e q u i r i n g a s a m p l e w i t h more t h a n  of teaching experience  was  least  t o have plan the  three  i n s u r e d wide v a r i a t i o n s of e x p e r i e n c e .  number o f y e a r s  a  years  The mean  12.9.  Procedure Contact mailed  the  interviewee ask  with  subjects.  i n i t i a l was  f o r support  One  contact  given  found  that  criteria  a n d 20 w e r e p r e p a r e d  a 74% p a r t i c i p a t i o n  selection  criteria.  appointments teacher.  were  27  scheduled  potential  at her school, to  met  to p a r t i c i p a t e  the  i n the  specific  this  selection  o f t h e s u b j e c t s who  A t t h e same t i m e ,  were  information f o r  teachers  rate  teachers  each  call  i n helping to c o l l e c t  I t was  after  l e t t e r ,  a telephone  study.  —  week  study  met  the  interview  at the convenience  of the  29. Data (See  collection.  Appendix  teachers'  A serai-structured interview  I ) was  used  experiential  to collect  planning  behavior.  consisted of a s e r i e s of e i g h t questions open-ended  and  required  reasons f o r t h e i r question  teachers  responses.  i n order  and  data  concerning The  interview  most o f w h i c h were  to describe  The r e s e a r c h e r  used  guide  and  give  presented  each  t h e same w o r d i n g  f o r each  respondent. The  interview  A tape r e c o r d e r lation  s c h e d u l e was p i l o t e d p r i o r  t o tape i n t e r v i e w s f a c i l i t a t e d  of a p r e c i s e  each i n t e r v i e w . Interviewing All during  to the  record  In t h i s  of the exigencies  study,  20  time ranged i n l e n g t h  t h e accumu-  which arose i n  interviews  were  f r o m 20 - 40 m i n u t e s .  and  June  of  the 1981-82  school  the school  —  the teacher's  empty  s t a f f room, t h e n u r s e ' s room, t h e l i b r a r y cubbyhole the  teacher's  conducted lunch  i n the school.  a n d one  teachers  schoo.l,  during  seemed v e r y  interview.  The  four  Eleven before  a teacher's responsive  fact  A l l  locations  classroom,  or a s m a l l  the quiet  A l l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted a t  convenience.  after  period  year.  i n t e r v i e w s , e x c e p t one, were conducted i n v a r i o u s within  taped.  i n t e r v i e w s were c o n d u c t e d w i t h i n a f i v e - w e e k May  study.  that  interviews school,  preparation  and c o - o p e r a t i v e the  four  were during  time. during  interviewer  was  The the an  30. experienced entire  teacher  study.  responded  "plan  I t was  For example,  teach  t h e same  according  responses  lead  one  and  about their  hypothetical  they  of  the c l a s s " .  These  responses  types  of data  were generated  were asked time  programs  given  and  forobjective spent  planning,  and m a t e r i a l s .  the opportunity  t o make  i n d e s c r i b i n g and d i s c u s s i n g t h e i r They w e r e a s k e d situations  own  t o make d e c i s i o n s a b o u t based  on a  theoretical  ( s e e pp. 4 - 6 ) . thought  i n order  become a p p a r e n t .  cedure  similar  t h e same way t w i c e " a n d t h e y  Teachers  also  planning  was  responses  generally  behavior.  use of p r e p a r e d were  to the  frequently said  teaching experience,  planning behavior.  necessary  teachers  to suspect- t h a t - t h e i r  Two  s u b j e c t i v e responses  It  thing,  study.  their  Respondents  framework  teachers  planning  analysis.  analyzed i n t h i s data  that  to the needs  represent s i m i l a r  Data  found  more c r e d i b i l i t y  t o the i n t e r v i e w q u e s t i o n s i n remarkably  language. "never  seemed t o o f f e r  that  at least  interviews  f o r p a t t e r n s of planning A t t h e end o f each  f o r each q u e s t i o n w e r e  was  20  on f i l e  cards.  behavior  to  interview, verbatim  transcribed.  f o l l o w e d f o r each i n t e r v i e w .  also recorded  were  These notes  This  pro-  F i e l d notes  were  and  transcrip-  31. tions  were  analyzed  general procedure was  followed.  1.  f o r modal  i n analysis advocated  The  p a t t e r n s found  the  S o r t i n g and  3.  C o n s t r u c t i o n of g l o b a l  4.  Final  o r d e r i n g of  a n a l y s i s and  be  t o be  sorted  results. data. time,  S i x major  They w e r e : teacher  reliance teacher  on  tabular  teacher  as  teacher  level  form.  the  researcher  to a l l interview  questions  This chart enabled  phenomena  to  facilitate used  prepared  was  not  a n a l y s i s of  to help teacher  classify planning  materials,  reliance  in science.  under each h e a d i n g  and  results  responses,  experience, on  order  behavior  headings were  others,  confidence  classified  a way  reliance  included:  p r e s e n t a t i o n of  inspected.  i n such  (1971)  phenomena  to a s c e r t a i n t y p i c a l  visually  A  design  drew up a c h a r t w h e r e r e s p o n s e s could  response.  Lofland  structure,  i n planning  2.  of  by  steps i n the procedure  E x p l i c i t r e n d e r i n g of  In order  patterns  The  on  teacher  evidence  and  descriptive  data  easily  summarized  in  32. CHAPTER R e s u l t s and  This  chapter  described  presents  i n the  Discussion  the  preceding  IV  results  of  chapter.  conclude w i t h a d i s c u s s i o n of the  the f i e l d  study  chapter  w i l l  The  findings.  Results Teacher did  not  experience.  appear  Whether  a  to  affect  teacher  taught  seem t o a f f e c t how found  tested  l e n g t h of t e a c h i n g  planning  practice  f o u r y e a r s o r 24  d e c i s i o n s were b a s e d .  that experienced  s t u d i e s and  The  teachers  comments w e r e : experience";  gained  "You and  sort  "A  through  out  of  teachers.  years  i t did  However  t  i t  were a b l e to base  s c i e n c e c o n t e n t d e c i s i o n s on  practices  experience  what  their  i s important teacher  was  social  personally  experience.  less experienced  not  Typical with  more  needs t o p l a n  more". I t was a  factor  experienced  not p o s s i b l e to a s c e r t a i n whether e x p e r i e n c e which  affected  teachers participated  Teacher c o n f i d e n c e . seemed  to  planning  affect  how  The  i n the  level  teachers  of  behavior.  was Only  study.  teacher  planned.  confidence Confidence,  h o w e v e r , was n o t a p r o d u c t confidence  of experience.  seemed t o be b a s e d  on a h i g h  matter  knowledge of t h e t e a c h e r .  was a  science  specialist  she h e l d  A typical  level  a higher  reasoning subject  seemed  when m a k i n g  of  than a teacher  who  comment w a s :  matter  t o use t h e method content  i n which  t h i s was p r o b a b l y  they  teacher  level  The s t r e n g t h y o u f e e l i n y o u r s e l f i s where you'd f e e l most c o n f i d e n t . planning i s different. I'm a specialist. I f I was i n s e c u r e , I ' d other colleagues. Teachers  of subject  For example, i f a  c o n f i d e n c e when p l a n n i n g s c i e n c e c o n t e n t was n o t a s p e c i a l i s t .  A high l e v e l of  planning  probably Science science r e l y on  of  practical  decisions  felt- secure^  about  The r e a s o n f o r  b a s e d on a t e a c h e r ' s e x p e r t i s e o f k n o w i n g  how t o e x p l a i n a n d "do" e x p e r i m e n t s  with  the children.  T e a c h e r s seemed t o u s e t h e m e t h o d o f a u t h o r i t y i f t h e y felt  l e s s c o n f i d e n t about the content  area.  Typically  teachers  matter  of the subject  said:  My own l a c k o f k n o w l e d g e [ i n s c i e n c e ] h o l d s me back. I t e n d t o t e a c h t h e same u n i t s o v e r a n d over a g a i n . I n s o c i a l s t u d i e s I d o n ' t do t h a t necessarily. Of liked  t h e 20 t e a c h e r s  interviewed, five  t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e ; 15 s a i d  they  teachers  d i d not.  said  The f i v e  they who  34. liked  teaching  science  regarded  themselves  s p e c i a l i s t s and had f e e l i n g s o f h i g h subject  matter;  about  confidence  t h e 15 who d i d n o t e n j o y  as much a s s o c i a l  studies said  the subject matter.  they  as  were  felt  "shaky"  about the  teaching n o t as  science  confident  W i t h i n t h e 15 who d i d n o t l i k e —  t e a c h i n g s c i e n c e t h e r e was a r a n g e o f r e s p o n s e s they  science  a n d "a l i t t l e  11  said  f r i g h t e n e d " because  they  w e r e " u n s u r e a b o u t how e x p e r i m e n t s w o r k e d " a n d " t h e s u b j e c t content  was s o b r o a d " ;  three  s a i d they  whenever p o s s i b l e ; a n d one s a i d science  indicated  planning  that their  to three  evidence  unit  was  related  In t h i s activity  study,  taught  planning.  previews  t h i s type  did differentiate  Daily planning Unit planning  one  T h e r e was no time  of planning  spent  decisions  between  daily  i n v o l v e d keeping  included unit  a n d l e s s o n s f o r a new u n i t .  of p l a n n i n g  b l o c k o f time  to the kinds  teachers  i n v o l v e d from  o f p r e p a r a t i o n per day.  Teachers  daybook a n d m a r k i n g .  In  time.  planning  hours  t e a c h e r s made.  yearly  really  t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e amount o f t e a c h e r  planning  and  she "never  o f f " science  to her c l a s s " .  Teacher  half  "traded  was f r e q u e n t l y done  previews,  Teachers i n an  a  said  extended  on t h e w e e k e n d s .  the study  i t was  found  that  unmarried  female  35. teachers who was  seemed  were m a r r i e d not  to  s p e n d more t i m e p l a n n i n g t h a n  or c o - h a b i t a t i n g .  a factor  considered  future research might  teachers which  they  based  and  teaching reasons  status  i t affects  teacher  0  to f e e l i n g s their  t h i s i s the assumption from  how  perspective in planning.  referred  marital  i n the s e l e c t i o n - of s u b j e c t s ,  investigate  planning behavior.  Personal  Although  teachers  and  planning  reasons  as meaning a l m o s t  as  decisions.  that feelings  experience.  In t h i s  Teachers  about  study a l l  grounds  on  Implicit  in  teaching  referred  t h e same t h i n g .  come  to  feelings  For  example:  I s e e l o g i c a n d f e e l i n g s as b e i n g v e r y c l o s e to each o t h e r b e c a u s e i f you t r u s t y o u r own f e e l i n g s y o u ' r e h o p e f u l l y l o g i c a l l y coming t o that decision. I r e a l l y do r e a s o n o u t a l o t o f t h i n g s f o r m y s e l f about what I t h i n k k i d s can g e t the most b e n e f i t from. I b a s i c a l l y t r u s t my own f e e l i n g s about i t . What l o g i c a l l y i s b e s t f o r your group depends on t h e f e e l i n g s y o u h a v e a b o u t t h a t g r o u p . You  t e a c h what y o u ' r e  Although personally others  interested i n .  planning behavior tested practices  seemed  to a f f e c t  the  of  was  f r e q u e n t l y grounded i n  teachers,  j u d g m e n t and  working  with  decision-making  36. process to  as w e l l .  view  interactions  Informal before  The g e n e r a l  provided  with  with  Socializing  avenue where  a t workshops  teachers  how  they  decision  was their  resource  or p r i n c i p a l . felt  Of t h e f o u r  they  on c o l l e a g u e  would  felt  decisions felt  student their  have  (one f e l t  be m o s t  responses,  likely  felt  the  i n f l u e n c e ;  and  the  two  of people  could  specialist).  be a f a c t o r  decisions. who  resource  five  parent-colleague  i n f l u e n c e might  t o base  strong;  colleague-resource  i n f l u e n c e d by s t u d e n t s t o p i c over  an  be  a combination  planning  possible  influence; s i xfelt  could  remaining  social  asked  b a s e d on i n p u t f r o m a c o l l e a g u e , p a r e n t s ,  principal  In  and conferences  content  influence could  change  i d e a s and  specialists.  specialist  felt  teaching  studies  decisions  another  o r on w e e k e n d s ,  t h e i n t e r v i e w , t e a c h e r s were s p e c i f i c a l l y  teachers  their  way.  i n the staffroom,  came i n c o n t a c t w i t h  m i g h t make a s p e c i f i c  specialist seven  seemed  i n a positive  colleagues  practical  peer group and c u r r i c u l u m During  others  school, i n the evenings  teachers  strategies. another  with  interaction  and a f t e r  trend of the responses  influence; Two  teachers  t o make  They f e l t  indicated  influence  them  t h e y m i g h t be  a preference  o f one  another.  general, colleagues  seemed t o p r o v i d e  the greatest  37. influence was  on  teacher  planning  g r e a t e s t when t e a c h e r s  s t y l e was  compatible  the q u e s t i o n plans  with  behavior.  felt their  the  good t e a c h e r  next  developed  door",  influence  colleague's  teaching  own-.  of whether a teacher  or go w i t h p l a n s  Their  A typical  might by  stay  response  with  to  her  a "trusted friend  own  and  a  was:  I t w o u l d d e p e n d o n how long I have been teaching Eskimos. You m i g h t be r e a d y f o r a change. I f I f e l t I was on t h e same w a v e l e n g t h - l i k e t o do t h e same k i n d s o f t h i n g s , I m i g h t c o n s i d e r i t . I, m i g h t t r y i t f o r a y e a r ... d e f i n i t e l y s t i m u l a t i n g t o w o r k w i t h others. I t can drum up y o u r e n t h u s i a s m . Teachers w o r k s h o p s and ideas  were  also  seemed  conferences  shared. felt  used  conceptual  the  interact  w h e r e new  I t was  that teachers in  to  with  teaching  at workshops  had  contextual  at  s t r a t e g i e s and  and  that s c h o l a r l y evidence and  colleagues  conferences likely  been  development  of  information. The  five  influence only  their  teachers planning  i f the p r i n c i p a l  had  who  felt  the  decisions  said  a school-wide  principal  might  they  do  goal  example, i f the p r i n c i p a l wanted the e n t i r e in  a multicultural  project.  more c o n c e r n e d w i t h g e n e r a l teacher  planning.  A typical  They  school  felt  affairs  response  was:  would  i n mind — school  for  involved  the p r i n c i p a l than  so  was  individual  38. I h a v e n e v e r w o r k e d f o r a p r i n c i p a l who tells y o u w h a t t o do. You c a n a l w a y s go a n d a s k . In  this  study,  involvement  affected  unanimously  said  m a t e r i a l s and  to talk  related  to the  encouraged  no  teacher how  that  they  to the c l a s s  the  "school's sake".  parental Teachers  volunteered to  about  a  sake"  bring  specific  parent  "children's  Typical  that  planned.  i f a parent  curriculum, that  for  f e l t  topic  involvement  was  as  the  well  as  comments w e r e :  Super! Great! Y o u ' d be c r a z y n o t t o u s e a resource l i k e t h i s s i n c e i t ' s the k i n d of t h i n g t h a t k i d s remember s e e i n g a n d h e a r i n g . I t g i v e s the k i d s a r e a l i t y I wouldn't  base.  l e t t h e p a r e n t g e t away.  The more p e o p l e c o m i n g i n f r o m t h e c o m m u n i t y t h e b e t t e r t h e s c h o o l i s f o r i t . The k i d s a r e better f o r i t too. A  m a j o r i t y of  involve They  teachers  t h e p a r e n t s when i t was  felt  i t was  program" r a t h e r did  the  say,  better  than  however,  to  "plan the  they  they  convenient  "plan around that  said  preferred  f o r the  parent  would  class.  around  the parent". accommodate  other  alternative  was  available.  In t h a t  the  Teachers a  parent  coming i n t o t h e c l a s s r o o m , a t t h e p a r e n t ' s c o n v e n i e n c e , no  to  i f  respect  39.  teacher  planning  d e c i s i o n s were  a f f e c t e d by  g e n e r a l , p a r e n t s were seen t o h a v e l i t t l e teachers felt  based  that  they  their were  planning the  parents.  In  i n f l u e n c e on  how  decisions.  final  arbiters  Teachers of  still  curriculum  decisions.  Student  influence.  described  planning  organizing process to  content  In  as  a  and  implied  needs  through  of  process  w o u l d be  students.  i n t e r v i e w s was  planning  behavior  was  situation  of s t u d e n t s .  study, of  activities.  of d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g  f i t the  this  intended  teachers  developing  elaborated  that  notion optimize  Modal responses  their  planning process.  such  as  student  maturity.  that  student  student  T y p i c a l comments by  i f i t was  teacher  the l e a r n i n g  for  the  need.  characteristics  guided  characteristics  abilities  teachers  and/or  were:  Teachers mentioned  needs,  this  adapted  the  I p l a n a c c o r d i n g t o what the c h i l d r e n d i d say  and  stated  to  and  Ultimately,  Explicitly  I ' d c h a n g e my d e c i s i o n b e n e f i t of the c l a s s .  Teachers  typically  and  student  were:  K n o w i n g y o u r c h i l d r e n , what they can w i t h , how y o u c h a n g e t h i n g s t o h e l p t h e m  cope ...  40. I'd s i f t t h r o u g h and p u l l k i d s c o u l d work a t .  o u t what I ' d f i n d  my  I n e v e r t e a c h t h i n g s t h e same way t w i c e . I t d e p e n d s on t h e k i d s I t e a c h . I don't want t o s t r u g g l e a y e a r , so I want t o t e a c h t o t h e group. ... m o r e problems.  planning  when  you have  behavior  I g o o n my f e e l i n g s a n d t h o s e I h a v e o f my class. I have a f a i r l y good f e e l i n g after [the f i r s t ] t h r e e weeks; a p r e t t y good f e e l i n g by t h e e n d o f O c t o b e r . My u n i t s a r e b a s e d o n n e e d . By t h a t I mean, I make my own d e c i s i o n s o n w h i c h p a r t s o f t h e c u r r i c u l u m a r e most a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e k i d s a t the t i m e .  A v a i l a b i l i t y  teachers  were  materials  of  materials  asked  and/or  about programs  how  and time,  heavily  developed  teachers answered t h i s q u e s t i o n they (books,  filmstrips,  films,  etc.).  they  i n s t a n c e s b u t one, t e a c h e r s  provincially  on  them.  developed  c o l l e c t e d from l o c a l Whenever said  they  The m a t e r i a l s  relied used  to their  and c o n f e r e n c e s  personal  they In  moderately  ranged  m a t e r i a l s , programs or i d e a s were used,  they a d a p t e d them  When  by o t h e r s .  lesson aids to resources  workshops  on  resources  Respondents f e l t  all  heavily  relied  did include  use m a t e r i a l s and/or programs d e v e l o p e d  to  study,  by o t h e r s .  did  said  i n the  from  and i d e a s attended. teachers  perspective.  A  41. typical  comment w a s : I f t h e r e i s s o m e t h i n g a v a i l a b l e a n d i t f i t s my purpc'ce, I ' d u s e i t v e r y d e f i n i t e l y . If i t i s available, I'd use i t ; but I can't say a n y t h i n g 100% f i t s my s p e c i f i c n e e d s - y o u h a v e t o m o d i f y i t i n some way.  When planning said  teachers  were  a science  unit versus  the access  important  asked  about  a social  to materials  to planning  the differences i n  and  studies  unit,  equipment  they  was  very  science.  I f a n y o n e h a s m a t e r i a l s , I'm more t h a n g l a d t o l o o k a t them; b u t a c c e s s h a s t o be t h e r e . T e a c h e r s do d i n o s a u r s , s e a l i f e a n d a n i m a l s s i n c e t h e y d o n ' t h a v e t o r e l y on e q u i p m e n t . When y o u h a v e t o h u n t a r o u n d f o r [ l a b ] e q u i p ment, i t ' s a h a s s l e ! Teachers disruptive.  said  experiments  Implicit  experiential c o n t r o l more  science  i n this  teaching  than  greater  latitude  studies.  Science  and  factual.  time-consuming  and  comment  i s the f a c t  that  may make c l a s s management a n d  difficult.  Teachers a l s o s a i d t h a t subjective  were  science  social  content,  f o r making content  studies content therefore,  planning  was more  there  was  a  decisions i n social  was t h o u g h t t o be m o r e  objective  42. Time was a n o t h e r study, to  a l l teachers  preview  factor influencing planning.  said  they  had t o have  In t h i s  sufficient  m a t e r i a l s and programs developed  time  by o t h e r s .  A  modal r e s p o n s e was: How f a r i n a d v a n c e o f g e t t i n g w i n d o f new r e s o u r c e s w o u l d be t h e m a i n f a c t o r f o r u s i n g these m a t e r i a l s . One  teacher,  planned  social  when  asked  whether  she would  s t u d i e s u n i t or one p l a n n e d  u s e h e r own  by a  colleague  s a i d h e r d e c i s i o n s w e r e b a s e d o n "What was m o s t e x p e d i e n t time  i s of major  materials  importance".  she s a i d ,  " I f I'd taught  m a t e r i a l s were p r e p a r e d , unprepared  I'd continue  a n d s h e o f f e r e d me  time,  I'd c e r t a i n l y  case,  time  As f a r as u s i n g i t before on.  -  others' and t h e  B u t , i f I was  the unit - a shortcut i n  be i n f l u e n c e d t o c h a n g e " .  In  this  c o n s i d e r a t i o n s pre-empted planning decisions.  In g e n e r a l , t h e time  needed f o r p l a n n i n g  d i d not appear t o  i n f l u e n c e p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s a s much a s t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f materials.  pjscussjon In t h i s be  study,  teachers' planning behavior  grounded i n p e r s o n a l l y t e s t e d p r a c t i c e s .  found  that  teaching  behavior  may  was f o u n d t o I t was  be t o a l a r g e  also  degree  43. "planned" central  by  the  These  two  themes w i l l  teachers  w i t h i n the  classroom.  t y p i c a l l y w o r k a l l day  adults.  The  reason  Elementary  in relative  for teacher  school  isolation  i s o l a t i o n may  from l i e in  the f a c t  t h a t "those w i t h the i n t i m a t e knowledge a b o u t  work a n d  i t s p r o b l e m s , and w i t h t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s  it, of  a r e a f f o r d e d few the  1970,  p.  to  o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o come t o g e t h e r  g e o g r a p h i c a l p r o p e r t i e s of the workplace"  the  judge  because (Dreeben,  52).  The  nature  of  the  impact  minimizes  regulatory individual within  be  to the f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n .  Isolation  other  environment.  the  individual  of  mechanisms classroom  the  school  p r i v a c y and  activity.  system  of  the  new  as  collecting  i d e a s and of  a  what  can  planning  as  In t h i s of  they  totally  affect  based  an  teachers  i d e a s by  agency the  their  isolated usually  "talking  teachers  informally  on  the  classroom.  own  shop"  described  gathering  m a t e r i a l s from o t h e r s , w i t h use  formal  penetrate  is also  study,  The  T h e r e i s no  setting  m a t e r i a l s and  process  to  that  school  o u t s i d e of s c h o o l - t i m e . planning  schools  of the closed-door  teacher  Within  become a w a r e  in  effectively  influences.  are unsystematic.  isolation  Individual  decision  outside  classroom  the  opinion.  and final The  44. finding  was  teachers without ideas  consistent with  felt  confident  actually  activities priorities  and and  content  relative  teachers  1975).  Within  and community  comments  described their  new  around personal  the  from  were  planning  teacher's  Much o f t h e  (Jackson,  lies  teacher's of  class-  1968)  rather  In t h i s  illustrative  to  (Dreeben, role  the exigencies  events  schools  not s u b j e c t  o f t h e i r work  than from a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d i r e c t i v e s . following  work  Although  are simply  i n d i v i d u a l i s m and a u t o n o m y .  school  their  ijse of  w h i c h were congruent w i t h  work d e r i v e s i t s c h a r a c t e r room,  planned  r o l e i n the substance  Lortie,  decisions  classroom  w i t h i n the classroom.  resemble b u r e a u c r a c i e s ,  1973;  making planning  the d i r e c t  They  (1970) where  experience.  Individualism  bureaucratic  about  seeing  and m a t e r i a l s .  D r e e b e n ' s work  study,  o f how  the  teachers  practice:  I t h i n k I know how k i d s l e a r n , w h a t ' s t h e o r d e r t h e y l e a r n , w h e n , how ...  best,  Because I've taught l o n g enough, I f e e l out w h a t I w a n t t o do a n d l o g i c a l l y i t s e e m s o n l y s e n s i b l e t o do t h i n g s a c e r t a i n way. Individual in  teachers perceived  knowing the b e s t  way  to plan  that their and t e a c h .  e x p e r t i s e was Their  sole  45. r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was typical Work  r e s p o n s e was,  by  Jackson  finding.  Both  teachers  how  activities  istic  "Anything  (1968)  and  would  i n the classroom.  to get the k i d s Lortie  researchers found  they  time, t e a c h e r s  found  t o promote l e a r n i n g  choose  overwhelmingly  (1975)  school at large  (p. 164).  (1975)  that  found  they  asked work-  selected teaching-related  t h a t 90% o f t e a c h e r s i n h i s s t u d y activities  this  spend a d d i t i o n a l  r a t h e r than school-wide m a t t e r s .  classroom  learn".  support  t h a t when  to  to  A  chose  r a t h e r than  Both J a c k s o n  teachers*  Lortie  individual-  working (1968)  allegiance  (1975)  with  and  the  Lortie  was  to  the  classroom. In  the  studies  area  of  teacher  (Goodlad  et  a l . , 1970;  Marx and  Clark,  1978;  shown t h a t t e a c h e r s idealized  model  in  use  selecting  this  type  do  not  "rational"  teachers are p r i m a r i l y Teachers  Jackson,  T a y l o r , 1970;  simply  of  planning behavior,  a variety  concerned  as  Zahorik,  conform  to  with teaching  of normative  planning  1968;  Peterson, 1975) the  and  where  objectives.  pragmatic  Yinger  have  highly  planning behavior  classroom procedures. of  numerous  criteria  (1978) r e f e r s  " p u r p o s e f u l " or  to  important  activity.  Influences  on  classroom  teaching.  Teachers  in  this  46.  study  a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t e x t e r n a l and  influenced  planning  curriculum  guidelines,  roles,  teachers  a s much d i r e c t did.  from  people  that  an  felt  and  student  of  learning  was  teaching  style.  relationship  between  guided  in consulting  e d u c a t i o n a l agent  had  with  students  interaction  teaching.  a  result  school  They  of  capable but  In  this  study,  of e n c o u r a g i n g  d i d not  individual teachers  seem or  to  said  p l a n n i n g as n e e d i n g reason  for  this  of the t e a c h e r s . involved it  likely  important  teacher  i n f l u e n c e on  either  did  the  not  see  area  of the p r i n c i p a l . i n the past  decision-making  The  been  very  not  i s also  see  role.  curriculum personnel  behavior  of  experiences  t e a c h e r s do  p a r t of a p r i n c i p a l ' s  planning  seemed  Experienced  originates  district  (Lortie,  principals  S i n c e most p r i n c i p a l s h a v e n o t  i n f l u e n c e s of  individual  they  and  behavior.  the involvement  i n curricular  as b e i n g an The  that  also  curriculum decisions,  exercise direct planning  with  administrators  said  school-wide  group  also  teachers  as  individual  teachers i n making p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s i s m i n i m a l 1975).  by  of  personal  aspect  factors  availability  interaction  that their  important  t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g and The  i m p l i e d t h a t no  contact  They  s t u d e n t s was felt  advice  Although  i n f o r m a l s t a f f r o o m c h a t t e r , and  resources,  they  decisions.  environmental  on  negligible  47. 1975).  (Lortie,  d i s t r i c t and of  general  a d o p t new centre,  Teachers  provincial  and  study  said  they  followed  g u i d e l i n e s as f a r as d i s s e m i n a t i o n  curricular ideas  in this  content.  They f e l t  no  compulsion  materials available  at  the  w o r k s h o p s and  conferences.  resource  In a l l cases,  teachers  s a i d they v a l u e d o u t s i d e i d e a s but gave s e c o n d a r y to  officially  of  help.  designated  They s a i d  colleagues.  The  h o w e v e r , i t may to  have  or  with  (curriculum specialists)  f o r t h i s was  l i e i n the f a c t  first-hand  classroom  not  sources from  explicitly  stated,  that colleagues are  thought  experience with  "what t h e k i d s l i k e " .  expedient  position  they p r e f e r r e d t o adapt m a t e r i a l s  reason  to  "what w o r k s "  A l s o , i t i s g e n e r a l l y more  t o borrow i d e a s from  the  teacher-next-door.  Implications  The  implications  of  these  district  program p o l i c y  are  "largely  self-directed"  (Dreeben,  significant.  difficult  t o implement a p o l i c y  district  or  district  wants  program,  individual  provincial  district-wide from  this  to  study  teacher of  would  1973,  p.  on  formulating  If teachers 458),  i t will  o r i n n o v a t i o n on  basis.  implement  efforts  findings  a  a  For  example,  new  elementary  i f a  suggest  education.  that individual  be  school, school  reading  p l a n n i n g p r a c t i c e s may  in-service  are  resist  Findings teacher  48.  perspectives school-wide  ultimately  i n p u t or commitment was n e c e s s a r y  contribute failure  He f o u n d their  that  personal  program i n n o v a t o r s w i l l individual  teacher  interest these  comes  a n d some  a  over  type  would  teachers  likely  of formal  this  i n mind,  the value  of the  and i n d i v i d u a l i s m innovation i s  extend  beyond t h e  generate  evaluation.  With  and an i n c r e a s e  S u c h m e c h a n i s m s may  exercising  innovation  and r e q u i r e t h e c o - o p e r a t i o n  increased  of the isolation  making t o remain dormant. in  likely  I t would  teacher.  reduction  them.  t o an  their  of the  visibility  and autonomy  i n external  cause  parent  Together  combine t o i n c r e a s e v i s i b i l i t y  classroom  individual  not able to  when a s c h o o l  classrooms  of teachers.  individual  isolation  A new p r o j e c t w o u l d  factors  a  were  With  have t o c o n s i d e r  disrupted fundamentally  groups  that  input.  scope o f i n d i v i d u a l of  perspective  e n v i r o n m e n t of teacher  initiated.  found  i n implementing  i f teachers  o f t h e p r o g r a m was l i k e l y .  The  t h e f a t e o f a new  ( 1 9 7 2 ) i n h i s w o r k on i m p l e m e n t a t i o n  new c h a n g e .  is  determine  or d i s t r i c t - w i d e p r o j e c t .  Fullan user  might  teacher  T e a c h e r s may f i n d  control  decision-  little  personal decision-making  of  purpose  practices i n  program development i f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s a b o u t t h e program  have a l r e a d y  b e e n made.  Lack o f t e a c h e r i n v o l v e -  49. m e n t may revert  be  one  to past  p r o j e c t begins Because  of  p r a c t i c e s as  premature  and i n s t r u c t . preted better  as  this  study  i n the  i s a p r e l i m i n a r y and  typically  innovation  Instead,  these  interim steps  practice.  speculative  cognitive planning behavior,  to p o s i t that  understand  planning  interest  schools  to decline.  account of teachers' be  t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s why  how  there  i s a " b e s t way"  f i n d i n g s might best  that help  values  and  i t would  educators  and  to plan  be  inter-  teachers  attitudes affect  their  CHAPTER V Summary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s  The  purpose  principal also  of t h i s  final  chapter  i s t o summarize t h e  f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e s t u d y .  It will  i n c l u d e a d i s c u s s i o n of the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study,  a proposal areas  of recommendations  and the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n  of  f o r future research.  Principal  F i n d i n g s and C o n c l u s i o n s  In t h i s  study  three g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s of teacher  planning  p r a c t i c e w e r e f o u n d t o be c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s  studies  ( s e e _ Summary- of., L i t e r a t u r e . , _ p.. 21)... . I t . , w a s f o u n d  that  teacher  and  planning  decisions, and  involved the making  that planning  theoretical  i n v o l v e d d r a w i n g upon  knowledge,  and p l a n n i n g  various factors outside the control The  goal of t h i s  was g o i n g  was a f f e c t e d by  s t u d y was t o a t t e m p t t o f i n d  on i n t h e minds o f elementary  On  the basis  f i n d i n g s were documented:  of t h i s  practical  of the teacher.  made p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s o f a c u r r i c u l a r nature.  of judgments  o u t what  t e a c h e r s when and  limited  they  instructional study  several  51. 1.  Teachers  basing  their  about  used t h e method o f p r a c t i c a l  planning  the knowledge  authority  level  when  they f e l t  of the subject.  and s c i e n c e were  c o n f i d e n t about t h e i r  2.  decisions  used  when  subject matter  programs  developed  by  confident  The m e t h o d s o f  teachers f e l t  others.  on  materials  Teachers  m a t e r i a l s d e v e l o p e d by c o l l e a g u e s m o s t f r e q u e n t l y that  less  knowledge.  Teachers r e l i e d moderately t o h e a v i l y  and/or  reasoning i n  but  used felt  t h e s e m a t e r i a l s n e e d e d t o be p r e v i e w e d a n d a d a p t e d t o  their  3.  individual  Teacher  teaching  s t y l e s and p e r s p e c t i v e s .  p l a n n i n g b e h a v i o r was i n f l u e n c e d  d e g r e e by two e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s — and a v a i l a b i l i t y  4.  Length  of teacher experience d i d not a f f e c t  Teachers  Teachers curricular  spent  characteristics  o f time and m a t e r i a l s .  t e a c h e r s made p l a n n i n g  5.  student  to a large  decisions.  saw p l a n n i n g from  planning.  how  a s an i m p o r t a n t  one-half  to three  hours  activity. daily  on  52. L i m i t a t i o n s of the The  general,  Study d e s c r i p t i v e nature  the g e n e f a l i z a b i l i t y small  s a m p l e of  possessed year  had  the  teachers  sample i n c l u d e d full-time,  of  only  study.  i n one  female  at least  The  individual  general  interview, the  noise the  location  i n t e r v i e w i n the  potential  affected teachers involving  the  described  i n the of  one-half  also t y p i c a l l y important  in planning  ascertained. study, tested.  taught  and  The  Grade  three  held a  data  while  B.Ed,  taping  i n t e r v i e w , the  and  the  time  of  day  of  Because  For  the r e l i a b i l i t y  of  planning  individual  study,  practices  student content.  needs The  survey  were  degree  nature  information gathered  as  They  d e s i r a b l e r e s p o n s e s was  the g e n e r a l the  the  have  example, i n the  s u b j e c t matter  of  of  collection.  personal  gave s o c i a l l y  the  location  d e s i r a b l e r e s p o n s e s may  of data.  that  4  experience,  to t h r e e hours of d a i l y p l a n n i n g .  stated  to which teachers  only.  a  Columbia.  school  the  school  their  included  c o n t r a c t or a t l e a s t a  for socially  validity  limited  s e t t i n g s v a r i e d t o some d e g r e e .  interview v a r i e d during the The  who  i n the d i s t r i c t ,  school level  study  of t e a c h i n g  degree from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h The  study  school d i s t r i c t  three years  contract  the  The  teachers  a permanent t e a c h i n g  temporary  of  of  was  not the not  53. Recommendations Analyzing  the  findings  becomes a p p a r e n t teachers  that  that  a l l teachers  plan  taken  i n a general-way and  inservice  m e n d a t i o n s may  a  about  Preservice  programs.  attitudes  planning  s h a r i n g and planning  to  offering  their  courses  to  one's assume  improvements  in  These  to  research  strategic  be  pre-  of t e a c h e r s .  Since  teachers'  recomon  and  so  influential  should  be  trained  group.  how  they  t o new by  preferences  for students  i n s t r u c t i o n a l methods, use important  and  to  think  i n the become  T h i s m i g h t mean  T h i s m i g h t be  seminars  affects  perceptions,  are  unique b e l i e f s  one's peer  m a t e r i a l s are  of  guide  beliefs  the long run i s determined use  recommend  teachers  exposing  from  -how  measures might  p e r c e p t i o n s about t e a c h i n g .  thinking  Although  spin-off  on'  planning.  and  process,  aware of t h e i r  and  as  a  same w a y ,  education  t e a c h e r s go  values,  by  serve  —  study, i t  i s based  i t i s unreasonable  the  to  descriptive  planning  p e r s o n a l i z e meaning Although  how  this  teacher  unique experience.  service  of  about  accomplished to  share  how  about  teaching.  of programs,  equipment  teachers, their value  teacher's  interpretation  in and  them.  Learning  how  t o a n a l y z e and  a d a p t new  curricula  to  the  54. characteristics beliefs with  of  students  i s valuable.  the  teachers  research s h o u l d be  of  and then  to  and  is consistent  to  argues  that  analyze,  take  reassemble c u r r i c u l u m m a t e r i a l s , both  them a f e e l i n g  the f e e l i n g  to personally held  ( 1 9 7 5 ) who  supported  adaptation to f i t their  give  as  recommendation  Ben-Peretz  trained  a p a r t , r e o r g a n i z e and to permit  This  as w e l l  t h a t they  own  unique  circumstances  of c u r r i c u l u m ownership, are  simply  rather  technicians executing  someone e l s e ' s p l a n . Student master  teachers  teacher  Experienced how  for  might an  teachers  practical  reasoning  b e n e f i t from  extended  may  be  working  teaching  with  a  practicum.  a b l e t o show s t u d e n t  teachers  i s the b a s i s f o r making most  daily  classroom d e c i s i o n s . The s u c c e s s e s o f s u c h i n d i v i d u a l s t e n d t o be b o r n a n d t o d i e . w i t h , t h e m ; b e n e f icial„.conseq u e n c e s e x t e n d o n l y t o t h o s e p u p i l s who h a v e p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t w i t h s u c h g i f t e d t e a c h e r s ... t h e o n l y way b y w h i c h we c a n p r e v e n t such w a s t e i n t h e f u t u r e i s by m e t h o d s w h i c h e n a b l e us t o make an a n a l y s i s of what t h e g i f t e d t e a c h e r d o e s i n t u i t i v e l y so t h a t s o m e t h i n g a c c r u i n g f r o m h i s w o r k c a n be c o m m u n i c a t e d t o o t h e r s . (Dewey, 1 9 2 9 , pp. 1 0 - 1 1 ) This might  encourage the i n e x p e r i e n c e d teacher  experienced  teacher  support  and  a s a m e n t o r - a h e l p e r who  to view gives  o f f e r s e x p e r t i s e i n t e a c h i n g methodology.  the  moral The  55. appreciation a teacher  of resources,  of a d i f f e r e n t  also important From t h i s was  seen  The  exposure  perspective  than  one's  by  own, i s  i n t h e development of a t e a c h e r . study,  the experience  as important  i n knowing  that  "works"  laden  student.  about  content,  i s important  How a t e a c h e r activities,  gained  from  teaching  "how" a n d " w h a t " t o p l a n .  of an i n e x p e r i e n c e d  style  a student  i d e a s and programs d e v e l o p e d  teacher  to a  and c r e d i b l e  actually  to a theory-  makes  equipment,  teaching  decisions  e t c . , may  provide  teacher with expectations that a r e r e a l i s t i c  and  tenable. Student skills  teachers  should  i n the decision-making  Decisions  made w h i l e  o n e s t e a c h e r s make.  become more a c q u a i n t e d processes  unique  to schools.  p l a n n i n g i n s t r u c t i o n may be t h e b e s t  They c a n be made w i t h  careful  deration  and d e l i b e r a t i o n .  Hands-on e x p e r i e n c e  available  to students  practicum.  inexperienced decisions  participate action  seen  Not only  be e n c o u r a g e d  decision-making. during  most  consi-  s h o u l d be  get involved i n classroom  should  i n group  c a n be  during  teachers  but they  with  should planning  to observe  Decision-making  staff  or  and in  department  meetings. With  the increased  programs a v a i l a b l e  variety  f o r a given  o f new  m a t e r i a l s and  s u b j e c t and grade  level,  56. efficient skills  decision-making  will  better  skills  equip  are  students  i n c r e a s i n g number o f j u d g m e n t s one Although teacher  Lortie  (1975) a n d  education  programs  preparation  for  instruction,  t e a c h e r s can  f o c u s e d on  the  the t a c i t  invaluable. to  rigorous  be  (1978) p o s i t  viewed  as o n l y  demands  of  o n l y b e n e f i t from  dimension  with  the  m u s t make i n t e a c h i n g .  McGregor  can  deal  These  of teacher  that  partial  classroom  more  attention  thinking.  We l e a r n how t o t e a c h a n d how to value t e a c h i n g and t e a c h e r s f r o m o u r e a r l i e s t d a y s and a l l our d a y s t h e r e a f t e r . I f we a c k n o w l e d g e the power and p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f these s o c i a l and c u l t u r a l p r o c e s s e s t h a t mould us, t h e n we m u s t v i e w t h e f u t u r e t e a c h e r as s o m e o n e who i s a l r e a d y f a r a l o n g i n h i s p r o fessional education. But the f l y i n the ointment i s obvious: the models of teaching he h a s l e a r n e d so w e l l ... m u s t i n l a r g e p a r t be u n l e a r n e d . . . . S t r a t e g i e s f o r the education of t e a c h e r s m u s t t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l problems of p r o v i d i n g c o n t i n u i n g support i f the s t u d e n t i s to change such firmly established behavior. ( C o g a n , 1976, pp. 7 - 8 ) .  Inservice period  of  necessary  programs.  service to  to  the  teachers,  lengthening inservice  i n c r e a s e the a d a p t a b i l i t y  teachers i n their staff  among  Due  development  planning practices. i n r e d u c i n g the  and  average will  flexibility  There i s a need  intellectual  be of for  narrowness  57. of  the  isolated  accomplished planning  by  and  materials.  classroom  encouraging  development  Valued  ning process  teacher. teacher  of  participation  encouraged.  User  day in  freely  curricular an  uncritical  1978) . their then  and  and  If teachers teaching  Teachers'  their  refers  (1973)  own to  materials analysis  ful  say  programs  and  i n the  plan-  about t h e i r but  a  ( M a c k a y and they  do,  might  every-  they  personally tested  effectively  be  do  so  Marland,  by  basing  practices, difficult.  pedagogy a r e grounded i n  this  and of  critic  what  designed  the  i s needed  idiosyn-  as  c l i n i c a l  p r a c t i c e s based  ongoing,  be  h i s own  on  the  r i g o r o u s and  (Mosher  look (1973)  s u p e r v i s i o n .  view  teaching  that  systematic,  that i t requires s p e c i f i c  practice"  Cogan  the a n a l y s i s of  t h a t the p r o f e s s i o n a l teacher of  inservice  critically  teaching behavior.  e m p h a s i s i s on  can  i s an  to help teachers  process  teaching  s h o u l d be and  feels  p l a n n i n g and  Specifically,  skills  of  on  they  the  experience.  training activity  it  what  teachers  principles  Cogan  at  do  i n  1972).  practices,  u n r e f l e c t i v e way  practice  inservicing  cratic  engage i n much t a l k  instructional  be  input guarantees  h i g h e r commitment t o the p r o j e c t ( F u l l a n , Teachers  might  interaction  district-wide  practitioner  s h o u l d be  This  "the that  analytical  s h o u l d be  a  care-  & Purpel,  1972,  58.  p.  79). I f new  to  be  teaching  passed  on  behaviors,  skills,  effectively  to  and  t i o n s - and  offer  other.  Teachers  instructional strative  to  e x p e r t i s e can, assistance  ideas  positive teachers  one  be  encouraged a t openly  in  about the  teaching  Planning lives,  the  by  of  adminimethod  help  of  admit they  be  at  stage  of  more  and  preparation.  deliberation  in  borrow  promote  subjects  i t  i n the minds  feel  a  where  Specifically,  attitude  of  approach  s h a r e and  also  content.  subjects l i k e  important  in  each  should  planning  admit they  teaching  openly  by  different  of  unconfident  science.  p a r t of teachers' p r o f e s s i o n a l  t h e r e f o r e , i t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t more t i m e be  for planning mean  i s an  who  the  I t might  unsure about the  teachers  compelled  This process  m i g h t h e l p promote a more p o s i t i v e elementary  with  to  a much more c o l l e g i a l  another.  attitude feel  differ  feedback  experiment  be  would  provided  T e a c h e r s who  providing  would not  where teachers  from  support  i t  are  t h i s means, make c o n t r i b u -  p r o f e s s i o n a l growth.  l e a s t recommended a n d teaching  then  to conform to a standardized  There would  teacher  by  by  who  behaviors  directives  teaching.  and  s u p e r v i s o r would help.  experience  competencies  teachers,  appear t h a t the o n - t h e - j o b c o a c h i n g the c l i n i c a l  and  granted  More t i m e f o r p l a n n i n g planning,  which  means  might that  59. teachers are l i k e l y  t o make b e t t e r d e c i s i o n s a n d j u d g m e n t s .  They a r e more l i k e l y methods  t o f i t the unique  classrooms. materials more  time  and develop  and support  expensive With model  these  i s needed  to  there w i l l  preview  h a v e t o be  f o r planning  (1979) f o u n d  paid  organized  time  dividends  inservice  be  o f how  and m a t e r i a l s .  programs  as w e l l  will  of policy or  conferences  which w i l l  By  have a g r e a t e r classroom  Suggestions  Research  Further f i e l d  one m i g h t  expect  understanding school  and programs,  p r a c t i c e and u l t i m a t e l y  f o r Future  thorough  I f p r e s e r v i c e and  decisions, local  materials  a  teacher  that  represented- i n teachers'  as a c t i o n s .  t e a c h e r s make p l a n n i n g construct  be  around  think.  are effective,  of the e f f e c t s  thoughts,  constructed teachers  i n more  t e a c h i n g and b e t t e r use of  recommendations i n mind, a type  might  i n  t h a t more  f o r t h e use of p r e s e r v i c e a n d i n s e r v i c e  understanding  may  instructional  to include preparation  curriculum resources  education  some  time  C l a r k and Elmore  and b e t t e r  and  and c o n d i t i o n s of their,  programs, then  pressure  contracts.  effective  needs  If sufficient  organized  teacher  t o adapt c u r r i c u l a  how  districts  w o r k s h o p s and  affect  on  teacher  practice.  w o r k i s n e e d e d by l o o k i n g d e e p e r i n t o t h e  psychology when t h e y  of planning.  F o r e x a m p l e , w h a t do t e a c h e r s  say " I see l o g i c and f e e l i n g s v e r y  other."  What  do  teachers  "know"  that  content  or m a t e r i a l s ] w i l l  investigate  i t [a c u r r i c u l a r  level,  subject matter  teacher  training  have  say they  just  decision  about  S t u d i e s a r e needed  educational setting  whether content, any  t o each  that  and c o n s t r u c t s o f t e a c h e r s .  a broader  studied to determine  they  planning  "work".  the understandings  P r a c t i t i o n e r s over be  mean w h e n  close  mean  factors  such  sex, marital  effect  on  should  as  grade  s t a t u s and  teacher  planning  processes. Another  study  school d i s t r i c t materials, if  might i n v o l v e observing  t h a t has a generous  resources  allotment  from  a more  w o u l d be p a r t i c u l a r l y vice  deprived environment.  inservice  This  I f teachers  particularly  training  should  t o see than  research  of  inser-  do, i n f a c t ,  t o h e a v i l y on p r o g r a m s a n d m a t e r i a l s  others,  teaching  grounds  valuable i n the designing  programs f o r teachers.  moderately  of  p r e p a r a t i o n time,  they base p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s on d i f f e r e n t  teachers  by  and teacher  teachers within a  rely  developed  c o l l e a g u e s , then  district-wide  include classroom  teacher-based  materials. Suggestions  f o r f u t u r e research cannot h e l p but p r o f i t  from a m u l t i p l i c i t y  o f r e c o g n i z e d and c o m p l e m e n t a r y ways o f  61. studying  teaching.  empirical  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , perhaps  approaches  on  student  ethnographic  empirical  behavior  actually  tap  teacher  thinking  teachers are why  a combination  dimension  topics of  importance about  do  what  may  teacher  of  By  to  mental  educational concerns.  research  with  might of  where  i n a p p r e c i a t i n g how  Suggestions  open  i n -  world  Understanding  i s essential  of  teacher  subjective  planning.  begin  teachers  relating  outcomes,  t h e y do.  of r e s e a r c h  combining  individual  the  solely  the general e f f e c t s  approaches  learning  "coming f r o m "  teachers  research  practical  the  to  t h e need f o r  learning.  s t u d i e s of  process-product  planning  and  stressing  a r e needed t o i n v e s t i g a t e  planning behavior depth  Besides  up  processes  the and  for future i n v i s i b l e  link  them  to  BIBLIOGRAPHY A n d e r s o n , B. L. D i f f e r e n c e s i n t e a c h e r s ' j u d g m e n t p o l i c i e s f o r v a r y i n g numbers o f v e r b a l and n u m e r i c a l cues. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l B e h a v i o r a n d Human P e r f o r m a n c e . 1 9 7 7 , 19_ (1) ,  68-88.  A n d e r s o n , L. M., a n d E v e r t s o n , C. M. Classroom o r g a n i z a t i o n a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f s c h o o l ; Two c a s e studies. Paper presented t o t h eAmerican A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e s f o r Teacher E d u c a t i o n , C h i c a g o 1978. B e n - P e r e t z , M. The c o n c e p t o f c u r r i c u l u m p o t e n t i a l . C u r r i c u l u m T h e o r y N e t w o r k . 1 9 7 5 , 5_(2), 1 5 1 - 1 5 9 . B o r k o , H., C o n e , R., R u s s o , N. A. a n d S h a v e l s o n , R. J . Experimental s t u d i e s of teacher decision-making. In P. L. P e t e r s o n a n d H. J . W a l b e r g ( E d s . ) R e s e a r c h on Teaching; Concepts, f i n d i n g s , and i m p l i c a t i o n s . Berkeley, C a l i f o r n i a : McCutchan 1979. B r o p h y , J . E. a n d G o o d , T. L. Teacher-student relationships: causes and consequences. New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1974. B u c k l e y , P. K. a n d C o o p e r , J . M. An e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y o f an e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h e r ' s e s t a b l i s h m e n t a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f g r o u p norms. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e American Education Research A s s o c i a t i o n meeting, Toronto, 1978. B u s s i s , A. M., C h i t t e n d e n , E. A., a n d A m a r e l , M. Beyond Surface Curriculum. Boulder, Colorado: Westview P r e s s , 1976. C l a r k , C. M. C h o i c e o f a m o d e l f o r r e s e a r c h on t e a c h e r thinking. ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 20) E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 8 . (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i v e S e r v i c e No.  ED  166135).  C l a r k , C. M. a n d E l m o r e , J . L . T e a c h e r p l a n n i n g i n t h e f i r s t weeks o f s c h o o l . ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 56) E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 9 . ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i v e S e r v i c e No. ED 1 6 0 6 0 5 ) .  C l a r k , C. M. and J o y c e , B. R. T e a c h e r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Paper p r e s e n t e d t o the American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , 1975. C l a r k , C. M., W i l d f o n g , S., a n d Y i n g e r , R. J . I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of s a l i e n t f e a t u r e s of language a r t s activities. ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 23) E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 1 6 2 9 8 2 ) . C l a r k , C. M. and Y i n g e r , R. J . Research thinking. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 1977,  on t e a c h e r 2 ( 4 ) , 274-304.  C l a r k , C. M. and Y i n g e r , R. J . Three s t u d i e s of teacher planning. ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 55) E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1979. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e NO. ED 1 7 5 8 5 5 ) . C l a r k , C. M. and Y i n g e r , R. J . The h i d d e n w o r l d o f teaching: i m p l i c a t i o n s o f r e s e a r c h on t e a c h e r planning. (Res. S e r i e s 7 7 ) . E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 1 9 1 8 4 4 ) . C o g a n , M. L. C l i n i c a l Supervison. H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1973.  Boston:  C o g a n , M. L. Rationale for c l i n i c a l supervision. Journal o f R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t i n E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 7 6 , 9_(2), 3-19. Dewey, J . York:  The S o u r c e s o f A S c i e n c e o f E d u c a t i o n . L i v e r w r i g h t , 1929, 10-11.  D r e e b e n , R. The N a t u r e o f T e a c h i n g . S c o t t , Foresman, 1970, 49-57.  Glenview,  D r e e b e n , R. The s c h o o l a s a w o r k p l a c e . I n R. T r a v e r s (ed.) S e c o n d Handbook o f R e s e a r c h Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y , 1973.  New 111.:  M. on  W. Teaching.  D u f f y , G. A study of teacher conceptions of reading. Paper p r e s e n t e d t o N a t i o n a l R e a d i n g C o n f e r e n c e , New O r l e a n s , 1977, (ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e s NO. ED 151763) .  D u f f y , G. Teacher e f f e c t i v e n e s s r e s e a r c h : Implications for the reading p r o f e s s i o n . ( 0 . P. 4 5 ) . East Lansing, MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 8 1 ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No.  ED  204344).  D u f f y , G. and M e t h e n y , W. Measuring teachers' b e l i e f s about r e a d i n g . ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 4 1 ) . East Lansing, MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No.  ED  174954).  D u f f y , G. and M c l n t y r e , L. D. A q u a l i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s of how v a r i o u s p r i m a r y g r a d e t e a c h e r s e m p l o y t h e s t r u c t u r e d l e a r n i n g component o f t h e d i r e c t i n s t r u c t i o n m o d e l when t e a c h i n g r e a d i n g . ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 8 0 ) . E a s t L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 1 8 4 0 8 5 ) . E i s n e r , E. W. Educational o b j e c t i v e s ; Help S c h o o l Review. 1967, 7_5_(3), 2 5 0 - 2 6 6 . E i s n e r , E. W. and V a l l a n c e , E. the c u r r i c u l u m . B e r k e l e y :  or  hindrance?  C o n f l i c t i n g conceptions McCutchan, 1974.  of  F l o d e n , R. E., P o r t e r , A. C., S c h m i d t , W. H., F r e e m a n , D. J . , and S c h w i l l e , J . R. Responses t o c u r r i c u l u m pressures; a p o l i c y - c a p t u r i n g study of teacher d e c i s i o n s about c o n t e n t . ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 7 4 ) . East L a n s i n g , MI: I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h on T e a c h i n g , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1980. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 1 9 0 5 2 6 ) . F u l l a n , M. user.  Overview of the i n n o v a t i v e p r o c e s s I n t e r c h a n g e . 1 9 7 2 , 1, 2-3.  and  the  G o o d l a d , J . , K l e i n , M. F., a n d a s s o c i a t e s . B e h i n d t h e C l a s s r o o m Door. W o r t h i n g t o n , O h i o : C h a r l e s A. J o n e s , 1970.  G r e e n , T. F. The A c t i v i t i e s McGraw H i l l , 1 9 7 1 .  of Teaching.  New  York:  H a r t s h o r n e , C. and W e i s s , P. ( e d s . ) . C o l l e c t e d P a p e r s o f C h a r l e s Sanders P e i r c e . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958, 563-564.  65.  J a c k s o n , P. The way t e a c h i n g i s . R e p o r t p r e s e n t e d a t t h e N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C., 1965. C e n t r e f o r the study of i n s t r u c t i o n . (ERIC . Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 0 2 8 1 1 0 ) . J a c k s o n , P. L i f e i n Classrooms. and W i n s t o n , 1968.  New  York:  Holt,  Rinehart  J a n e s i c k , V. An e t h n o g r a p h i c s t u d y o f a t e a c h e r ' s classroom perspective. Doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 1 7 3 3 0 2 ) . L o f l a n d , J . Analysing Social Settings. California: Wadsworth Pub., 1971.  Belmont,  L o r t i e , D. The b a l a n c e o f c o n t r o l and a u t o n o m y i n e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l t e a c h i n g . I n A. E t z i o n i ( e d . ) The S e m i - p r o f e s s i o n s and T h e i r O r g a n i z a t i o n s . New York: F r e e P r e s s , 1969. L o r t i e , D. O b s e r v a t i o n s on t e a c h i n g a s w o r k . I n R. T r a v e r s ( e d . ) . S e c o n d Handbook o f R e s e a r c h on Teaching. Chicago: Rand M c N a l l y , 1973.  M.  W.  L o r t i e , D. School teacher: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Study. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1975. M a c D o n a l d , J . B. Myths about i n s t r u c t i o n . Educational L e a d e r s h i p , 1975, 22(8), 571-576, 609-617. MacKay, D. A. a n d M a r l a n d , P. W. Thought p r o c e s s e s o f teachers. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t the American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n Annual Conference, Toronto, 1978. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e s No. ED 1 5 1 3 2 8 ) . M a r x , R. W. Teachpr j u d g m e n t s o f s t u d e n t s ' c o g n i t i v e and a f f e c t i v e outcomes. (Doctoral dissertation, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y , 1978) . D i s s e r t a t i o n A b s t r a c t s I n t e r n a t i o n a l , 1 9 7 8 , 3_9_, 2 5 9 3 A - 3 8 8 2 A . (University M i c r o f i l m s No. 7 8 2 2 5 4 0 ) . M c G r e g o r , M. F . The e d u c a t i o n and t r a i n i n g o f t e a c h e r s i n British Columbia. Victoria: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1978.  66. M o r i n e , G. A study of teacher p l a n n i n g . S p e c i a l S t u d y C. BTES t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t 7 6 - 3 - 1 . San F r a n c i s c o : F a r West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and Development, 1976. ERIC Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e s No. ED 146160). M o r i n e , G. a n d V a l l a n c e , E. A s t u d y o f t e a c h e r a n d p u p i l perceptions of classroom i n t e r a c t i o n . BTES t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t 75-11-6. San F r a n c i s c o : F a r West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h and Development, 1975. M o s h e r , R. L. a n d P u r p e l , D. E. Supervision: the reluctant profession. Boston: H o u g h t o n - M i f f l i n , 1971. P e t e r s o n , P. L. a n d C l a r k , C. M. Teachers' reports of their c o g n i t i v e processes during teaching. American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l . 1978, 15.(4), 555-565. P e t e r s o n , P. L., M a r x , R. W., a n d C l a r k , C. M. Teacher p l a n n i n g , t e a c h e r b e h a v i o r , and s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t . A m e r i c a n E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l , 1 9 7 8 , 15_, 417-432. P o l a n y i , M. The T a c i t D i m e n s i o n . Doubleday, 1966.  Garden C i t y ,  S c h e f f l e r , I . C o n d i t i o n s o f Knowledge. F o r e s m a n a n d Co., 1 9 6 5 .  New  Chicago:  York: Scott,  S h a v e l s o n , R. J . What i s t h e b a s i c t e a c h i n g s k i l l ? J o u r n a l o f T e a c h e r E d u c a t i o n . 1 9 7 3 , 21, 1 4 4 - 1 5 1 . S h a v e l s o n , R. J . T e a c h e r s ' d e c i s i o n m a k i n g . I n N. L. Gage (ed.) The P s y c h o l o g y o f T e a c h i n g M e t h o d s : The 75th Yearbook o f t h e N a t i o n a l S o c i e t y f o r t h e Study o f Education (Part I) Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1976. S h a v e l s o n , R. J . , C a d w e l l , J . , a n d I z u , T. Teachers* s e n s i t i v i t y t o t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n i n making pedagogical d e c i s i o n s . American Education Research J o u r n a l , 1 9 7 7 , 11(2), 8 3 - 9 7 . S h u l m a n , L. S. a n d E l s t e i n , A. S. Studies of problem s o l v i n g , judgment and d e c i s i o n making. I n F. L. K e r l i n g e r (ed.) R e v i e w o f R e s e a r c h i n E d u c a t i o n ( V o l . 3) I t a s k a , 1 1 1 . : F. E. P e a c o c k , 1 9 7 5 .  67. S h u l t z , J . a n d F l o r i o , S. S t o p a n d f r e e z e : t h e n e g o t i a t i o n o f s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l space i n a kindergarten/first-grade classroom. A n t h r o p o l o g y and E d u c a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y . 1979, 10.(3) , 166-181. S l o v i c , P., a n d L i c h t e n s t e i n , S. C o m p a r i s o n o f B a y e s i a n and r e g r e s s i o n a p p r o a c h e s t o t h e s t u d y o f i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g i n judgment. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Human P e r f o r m a n c e . 1971, 6_, 647-744. T a y l o r , P. H. How T e a c h e r s P l a n T h e i r C o u r s e s . Bucks.: National Foundation f o rEducational 1970.  Slough, Research,  T i c k u n o f f , W. J . a n d W a r d , R. A. A n a t u r a l i s t i c s t u d y o f the i n i t i a t i o n of students i n t o three classroom social systems. San F r a n c i s c o : F a r West L a b o r a t o r y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h a n d D e v e l o p m e n t R e p o r t A-78-11, 1978. Toomey, R. Teachers approaches t o c u r r i c u l u m p l a n n i n g : exploratory study. C u r r i c u l u m I n q u i r y , 1977, 2, 121-129. T y l e r , R. W. B a s i c p r i n c i p l e s o f c u r r i c u l u m and instruction. 111.: U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s ,  an  1950.  Y i n g e r , R. J . A s t u d y o f t e a c h e r p l a n n i n g : description and t h e o r y d e v e l o p m e n t u s i n g e t h n o g r a p h i c a n d i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g methods. Unpublished doctoral d i s s e r t a t i o n , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. ( R e s . S e r i e s No. 18) E a s t L a n s i n g , M I : I n s t i t u t e f o r R e s e a r c h o n T e a c h i n g , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. ( E R I C Document R e p r o d u c t i o n S e r v i c e No. ED 160605). Z a h o r i k , J . A. The e f f e c t o f p l a n n i n g o n t e a c h i n g . E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l . 1970, 2 1 ( 3 ) , 143-151. Z a h o r i k , J . A. Leadership.  Teachers' p l a n n i n g models. 1975, 3_3_(2), 134-139.  Educational  68.  APPENDIX  I  April  Dear  2 1 , 1982  Colleague:  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s l e t t e r i s t o ask f o r y o u r s u p p o r t i n h e l p i n g me g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h w i l l b e u s e d i n w r i t i n g my t h e s i s o n t e a c h e r t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s e s . I hope t h i s r e s e a r c h may h e l p o t h e r s u n d e r s t a n d how t e a c h e r s t h i n k and i n t u r n a s s i s t i n d e s i g n i n g more m e a n i n g f u l p r o f e s s i o n al inservice f o r teachers i n the future. I w o u l d l i k e t o c o n d u c t a 30-40 m i n u t e t a p e d i n t e r v i e w w i t h y o u i n o r d e r t o a s k how y o u m a k e c u r r i c u l a r and i n s t r u c t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s . A l l i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be k e p t c o n f i d e n t i a l a n d i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l be u s e d i n s u c h a way t h a t a n o n y m i t y w i l l be a s s u r e d . As an e x p e r i e n c e d B u r n a b y t e a c h e r on a l e a v e o f a b s e n c e , a t t e n d i n g UBC, I am v e r y a w a r e o f y e a r - e n d s c h o o l p r e s s u r e s , t h e r e f o r e I am i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n d u c t i n g i n t e r v i e w s j u s t a s soon as p o s s i b l e . I w i l l c o n t a c t y o u by t h e end o f A p r i l . Although participation i n this interview i s voluntary, I would g r e a t l y a p p r e c i a t e i f you w o u l d v o l u n t e e r t o t a k e p a r t i n my s t u d y . Thank y o u ,  Barbara B a l l h o r n  69.  APPENDIX I I INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR  RESEARCHER  The p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n t e r v i e w i s t o g a t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t how t e a c h e r s make p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s . I h o p e t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l h e l p us b e t t e r u n d e r s t a n d how t e a c h e r s t h i n k and i n t u r n a s s i s t i n d e s i g n i n g more meaningful p r o f e s s i o n a l i n s e r v i c e f o r teachers i n the f u t u r e . 1.  I  am  interested  teaching.  2.  How  in  knowing  how  many y e a r s h a v e y o u  l o n g you  have  been  taught?  S i n c e y o u a r e an e x p e r i e n c e t e a c h e r I am i n t e r e s t e d i n k n o w i n g how y o u go a b o u t m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s . I f I w e r e t o ask you w h i c h of t h e f o l l o w i n g b e s t d e s c r i b e s your u s u a l p r a c t i c e when i t comes t o m a k i n g d e c i s i o n s a b o u t w h a t y o u do i n t h e c l a s s r o o m , w h i c h one w o u l d y o u choose? a.  I u s u a l l y seek o p i n i o n s from people I r e s p e c t prof e s s i o n a l l y , d e c i d i n g on t h e b a s i s o f w h a t t h e y recommend. (For example, a w e l l respected c o l l e a g u e , your p r i n c i p a l , a p a r e n t ' s s u g g e s t i o n , and/or the d i s t r i c t r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t . )  b.  I u s u a l l y r e a s o n t h i n g s o u t f o r m y s e l f , d e c i d i n g on t h e b a s i s o f w h a t seems t o be m o s t l o g i c a l . (Logic r e f e r s t o m a k i n g a j u d g m e n t o f one s o l u t i o n o v e r a n o t h e r b a s e d on some k i n d o f r e a s o n . Take f o r e x a m p l e , t e a c h i n g a u n i t a b o u t E s k i m o s m i g h t be a b e t t e r way to teach c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y than t e a c h i n g a u n i t on t h e C o a s t I n d i a n s b e c a u s e E s k i m o l i f e i s s o c o m p l e t e l y d i f e r e n t f r o m o u r way of life.  c.  I u s u a l l y read the c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e , d e c i d i n g on t h e b a s i s o f w h a t t h e e v i d e n c e seems t o suggest.  d.  I u s u a l l y t r u s t my b a s i s o f what f e e l s (For example, k i d s E s k i m o more t h a n t h e  PROBE: Why  did  you  own f e e l i n g s , d e c i d i n g on t h e r i g h t f o r me a n d my s t u d e n t s . m i g h t enjoy s t u d y i n g about the Coast Indians.)  choose the  one  t h a t you  did?  I n t h i s i n t e r v i e w I am s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n k n o w i n g how y o u make p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s . C a n y o u t e l l me a b o u t w h a t a m o u n t o f t i m e y o u s p e n d p l a n n i n g e a c h day? PROBE:  What do y o u i n c l u d e  as planning?  How h e a v i l y d o y o u r e l y o n m a t e r i a l s a n d / o r t h a t h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d by o t h e r s ? PROBE:  What d o e s  programs  " h e a v i l y " mean t o y o u ?  Now l e t u s l o o k a t a s p e c i f i c p l a n n i n g s e e how y o u m i g h t m a k e a d e c i s i o n b a s e d factors:  s i t u a t i o n and on d i f f e r e n t  Y o u a r e a b o u t t o p l a n a S o c i a l S t u d i e s u n i t on a s p e c i f i c a b o r i g i n a l c u l t u r e w i t h i n Canada. You have n a r r o w e d down y o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s t o e i t h e r t h e C o a s t Indians or t h e Eskimos. You f a v o r t e a c h i n g t h e u n i t on t h e E s k i m o s b e c a u s e i n t h e p a s t t h e k i d s have r e a l l y liked i t . You have f o u n d t h a t by t e a c h i n g t h e E s k i m o c u l t u r e y o u a r e b e t t e r a b l e t o teach t h e concept of c u l t u r a l d i v e r s i t y because e v e r y t h i n g about Eskimo l i f e is so r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from our way o f l i f e . Another r e a s o n y o u have f o r p r e f e r r i n g t h e Eskimos over t h e I n d i a n s i s t h e s i m p l e f a c t t h a t y o u have a l a r g e c o l l e c t i o n o f m a t e r i a l s a l r e a d y p r e p a r e d . H o w e v e r ... a.  A f t e r s c h o o l t h e G r a d e 4 t e a c h e r n e x t d o o r , who i s a t r u s t e d f r i e n d a n d a good t e a c h e r t e l l s y o u t h a t she h a s a w h o l e u n i t p l a n n e d on t h e West C o a s t I n d i a n s and adds t h a t t h e k i d s j u s t l o v e t h i s u n i t . How w o u l d decisions.  this  situation  affect  P R O B E : How w o u l d a f r i e n d a n d a influence your planning decision?  b.  your good  planning teacher  O n e o f y o u r s t u d e n t ' s p a r e n t s who k n o w s a g r e a t deal about t h e West C o a s t I n d i a n s , v o l u n t e e r s t o b r i n g m a t e r i a l s and t o t a l k t o t h e c l a s s about them. How w o u l d decisions?  this  P R O B E : How decision?  would  situation  affect  a parent  influence  your your  planning planning  c.  The i n t e r m e d i a t e r e s o u r c e s p e c i a l i s t f r o m t h e PRO-D Centre drops i n t o your c l a s s and i n c o n v e r s a t i o n m e n t i o n s t h a t a l a r g e n u m b e r o f new r e s o u r c e s (games, p i c t u r e s , l e s s o n p l a n s , f i l m s t r i p s , e t c . ) have j u s t a r r i v e d d e a l i n g w i t h t h e t o p i c o f W e s t Coast Indians. How would decisions?  this  situation  P R O B E : How w o u l d planning decision?  d.  a  affect  specialist  your  planning  influence  your  Your p r i n c i p a l mentions a t a s t a f f meeting t h a t a l l s t a f f s h o u l d be more aware o f t h e m u l t i c u l t u r a l nature of your school population. Therefore, she s u g g e s t s t h a t b e c a u s e o f t h e l a r g e number o f n a t i v e Indian students i n the school, school a c t i v i t i e s i f possible, s p e c i f i c a l l y Social Studies projects, s h o u l d r e f l e c t t h e d i v e r s i t y o f t h e Coast Indian culture. How would decisions?  this  situation  P R O B E : How w o u l d planning decision?  a  affect  principal  your  planning  influence  your  A f t e r l o o k i n g a t t h e s e f o u r s i t u a t i o n s , w h i c h one w o u l d be most c o m p e l l i n g i n h e l p i n g y o u make a decision? P R O B E : Why w o u l d the o t h e r s ?  one i n f l u e n c e  be s t r o n g e r  than  We a l l know t h a t t e a c h e r s h a v e v e r y l i t t l e t i m e t o b a s e planning d e c i s i o n s on r e c e n t r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e . Can you r e c a l l any t i m e when y o u h a v e u s e d research e v i d e n c e a s a b a s i s f o r m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n no m a t t e r what the subject matter? PROBE: What a b o u t t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e w h e n c o n t r a r y t o what y o u b e l i e v e ? PROBE: What a b o u t t h e u s e o f e v i d e n c e w h e n planning social studies or science content?  i t runs you are  (a) C o n s i d e r i n g t h e s i t u a t i o n we w e r e l o o k i n g a t i n q u e s t i o n 4 , w o u l d y o u go a b o u t p l a n n i n g a s c i e n c e u n i t any d i f f e r e n t l y t h a n a s o c i a l s t u d i e s u n i t ? (b) Would your f e e l i n g s o f c o n f i d e n c e a b o u t t h e s u b j e c t matter i n f l u e n c e your p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s ? PROBE: What i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between p l a n n i n g " and " s o c i a l s t u d i e s p l a n n i n g " ?  "science  72. I n c o n c l u s i o n , i f y o u w e r e t o i n d i c a t e how y o u make p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s most f r e q u e n t l y , w h i c h one w o u l d best r e p r e s e n t your b a s i s f o r judgment? a.  opinions  of:  well-respected colleagues your p r i n c i p a l d i s t r i c t resource s p e c i a l i s t parent(s) of your students  b.  research  evidence  c.  logic  d.  feelings  e.  any  other  Can y o u t h i n k o f any o t h e r f a c t o r w h i c h m i g h t how y o u go a b o u t m a k i n g a d e c i s i o n ?  affect  73. APPENDIX I I I D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms The  following  terms a r e used throughout  this  study.  1.  C u r r i c u l u m ; r e f e r s t o the course B. C. s c h o o l s y s t e m .  2.  I n t e r a c t i v e t e a c h i n g : i s d e f i n e d as the face-to-face encounters between t e a c h e r and s t u d e n t s w h i l e t e a c h i n g i n the classroom (Jackson, 1965).  3.  Intuitive decision-making: refers or s u b l i m i n a l g r o u n d s f o r b e l i e f . a f e e l i n g or b e l i e f t h a t such a n d It i s the absence of evidence suspect.  4.  Judgment: i s a concept which r e f e r s t o a t r u t h c l a i m made i n t h e a b s e n c e o f c o n c l u s i v e g r o u n d s ( G r e e n , 1 9 7 1 , p. 1 7 7 ) . Judgments a r e o b j e c t i v e i n t h e sense that t h e y r e s t upon r e a s o n s , g r o u n d s , r u l e s o r p r i n c i p l e s . S i n c e t h e grounds o f judgment a r e never c o n c l u s i v e , i t is p e r f e c t l y p o s s i b l e f o r d i f f e r e n t persons t o give d i f f e r e n t j u d g m e n t s o n t h e same m a t t e r a n d e v e n i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e same g r o u n d s ; a n d i t may a l s o b e t h e case t h a t such d i f f e r e n t judgments a r e e q u a l l y reasonable. This p o i n t i s important i n education i n the f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no one " r i g h t " b o d y o f knowledge a b o u t teacher c o g n i t i v e processes b u t r a t h e r p o i n t s o f view w h i c h a r e open t o d i s c e r n i n g j u d g m e n t ( G r e e n , 1 9 7 1 , p p .  of studies w i t h i n the  t o the unconscious For example, " I have such i s t h e c a s e . " which marks i t as  170-178).  In t h i s s t u d y t h e terms judgment making a r e used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y . 5.  and d e c i s i o n -  P r a c t i c a l r e a s o n i n g ; r e f e r s t o t h e type of reasoning that teachers l i k e l y use. A t t h e h e a r t of p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n i n g i s an i n t e r e s t i n s o l v i n g a g i v e n p r o b l e m — solving a practical d i f f i c u l t y .  74. 6.  Know!edge; i s a complex c o n c e p t . In e d u c a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s , knowledge marks the whole c o n t e n t of our i n t e l l e c t u a l h e r i t a g e which teachers are concerned to p a s s on t o s t u d e n t s ( S c h e f f l e r , 1 9 6 5 ) .  7.  P r e a c t i v e t e a c h i n g ; i s d e f i n e d as w h a t t a k e s place b e f o r e and a f t e r s c h o o l , d u r i n g r e c e s s and a t o t h e r t i m e s when t h e t e a c h e r i s n o t e n g a g e d i n i n t e r a c t i v e t e a c h i n g but t h i n k i n g a b o u t h i s or her classroom teaching s i t u a t i o n (Jackson, 1965). For example, i t i n c l u d e s s u c h t h i n g s as p r e p a r i n g and p l a n n i n g l e s s o n s , m a r k i n g p a p e r s , s e t t i n g up e q u i p m e n t , m a k i n g a n d running o f f d i t t o s , photocopying m a t e r i a l s , and/or t h i n k i n g a b o u t how to deal with c e r t a i n behavior or l e a r n i n g problems. In t h i s study p r e a c t i v e t e a c h i n g p l a n n i n g are used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y .  8.  and  preactive  Teacher p l a n n i n g ; r e f e r s to the process i n v o l v i n g t e a c h e r t h i n k i n g , d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and j u d g m e n t . It i s a l l t h a t a t e a c h e r m i g h t do i n a d v a n c e o f t h e i n t e r a c t i v e phase of t e a c h i n g . A3 l o n g as what a t e a c h e r i s . doing aids i n preparing a guideline for future i n t e r a c t i v e t e a c h i n g i t c o u n t s as p l a n n i n g .  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0055739/manifest

Comment

Related Items